
Qass"B^ > \ m 
Book iD3 



w 



I 'LETION OF THE TRAVEL] I BRARY. 



VOYAG1 
In EUROPE. 



lTURA 



THE 



TEXT 



THE OLD TESTAMENT 



CONSIDERED: 



A TREATISE ON SACRED INTERPRETATION; 



BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS AND 
THE APOCRYPHA. 



BY SAMUEL DAVIDSON, D,D. 

OF TOE UNIVERSITY OF 1IALI.E, AND LL.D. 




LONDON: 
LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, LONGMANS, & ROBERTS. 

JJDCCCLVI. 



Tiic rbjlit «f translation is reserved. 



362- 
3(&X 



TEXT 

THE OLD TESTAMENT 

CONSIDERED. 



London : 

Printed by Spottiswoode and Co. 

New-street-Square. 



PREFAO B. 



The writer of the present volume has endeavoured to discuss 
the contents in a manner consistent with the general scope of 
the work to which it belongs. It consists of three parts ; the 
first, relating to the text of the Old Testament, or biblical criti- 
cism, as far as that portion of the sacred volume is concerned; 
the second, belonging to the interpretation of the Bible gene- 
rally, exhibiting a system of Sacred Hermeneutics ; and the 
third, containing an Introduction to the Old Testament as 
Avell as the Apocrypha. It was expected of the author that 
he should not exceed the space allotted to these topics in the 
last edition of the whole work ; and that they should be con- 
formed to the present state of knowledge regarding them. 
The first division is very briefly discussed, because the author 
had already written on it in his " Treatise on Biblical Criti- 
cism," to which he has often referred for more extended in- 
formation. Little has been added to the science since that 
tiwork appeared ; and therefore it seemed unnecessary to re- 
peat the same things in nearly the same words. What is now 
written, however, originated in independent thought; and 
should it be found to differ from the " Biblical Criticism " in 
any point, it must be accepted as the author's latest view. On 
' the subject of Hermeneutics, an extended treatise was also 
| published by the writer in the year 1843 ; where a history of 
biblical interpretation is given till the time of the Reformation, 
1 which will always retain its value. Though the space here 



iv PREFACE. 

devoted to this important branch is much less ; he hopes that 
the present treatise, as far as it goes, is an improvement on the 
larger. He has laboured, at least, to make it so. In some 
respects it will not supersede, but supplement, its predecessor ; 
the wish of the writer being that both should be consulted ; 
and that the reader should follow the last in preference to 
the first work, except where the older occupies independent 
ground of its own. 

The copious list of quotations from the Old Testament 
in the New, with accompanying notes and discussions, be- 
longs both to criticism and interpretation. Much thought 
and labour have been expended on this portion ; which the 
writer believes to be far superior to the corresponding part 
of the " Sacred Hermeneutics." 

Two hundred and fifty pages were allowed for an In- 
troduction to the Old Testament and Apocrypha. This 
fact is sufficient to show that a full and satisfactory dis- 
cussion of all the topics connected with so many books 
could not be furnished. Indeed, the third division alone 
would require four volumes to do it ample justice. The 
difficulties connected with it are so many and perplexing, 
that abundant room should be free for an exhaustive treat- 
ment. But the author has done what he could ; and it is 
hoped that nothing of moment has been left unnoticed. Un- 
less he is greatly mistaken, no essential point has been 
neglected; for which purpose he was compelled to exceed 
the two hundred and fifty pages. Here, perhaps, it may be 
thought that the author has had undue regard to Keil's book • 
but the latest Introduction to the Old Testament deserves to 
be specially considered. That it is the best, no scholar 
acquainted with De Wette's can ever suppose. It is not 
characterised by original investigation, independent inquiry, 
or high critical ability ; for it is mainly based on Hengsten. 
berg and Havernick, with such other writers as come nearest 






I 
\ 

PEEPACE. V 

to their stand-point. As far as the present writer can judge, 
the Dorpat Professor has not advanced Old Testament criti- 
cism and interpretation by his retrograde book ; nor can the 
extreme ground of Hengstenberg and his followers, in relation 
to many parts of the Hebrew Scriptures, stand the test of an 
impartial exegesis. Like all attempts to roll back the tide of 
steadily advancing inquiry, it must prove ineffectual. With 
that progressive march of investigation the candid reader 
will go hand in hand as far as it is safe, regulating its course, 
and restraining its excesses, that it may prove reliable. It is 
right that the theologian should be conservative, as far as he 
may out of deference to truth : he is wrong in showing an 
obstinate conservatism which shuts out the light because it 
proceeds from a suspicious quarter. Let him not be afraid 
of the fate of a revelation coming from God to man : the word 
of the Lord abideth for ever ; triumphant over the waves of 
opposition and the assaults of infidelity. By that word let 
him Lold fast, distinguishing the human and the divine in the 
Scriptures — the divine essence, alike imperishable and im- 
mutable ; the human form, which is necessarily imperfect. 

The manner in which the subjects had to be treated was 
not less perplexing than the matter. As the book was not 
meant for the learned alone but for intelligent students of 
the Bible, a half-popular cast was the most fitting. It was 
neither to be entirely popular and superficial ; nor altoge- 
ther learned and critical; but of an intermediate character. 
The difficulty of attaining this medium is great ; and the 
author does not presume to think that he has always secured 
.it. Some topics are of a nature to make it impossible, as 
parts of the book will show. It will be observed, that the 
Apocrypha is treated somewhat out of proportion, because 
i correct information on the subject is rare. Hence the ac- 
count of these books was lengthened. Probably this feature 
' will not detract from the value of the work. 



Vi PKEFACE. j 

It is hoped that candid and competent judges will ap-/ 
prove of the present attempt to produce a brief Introduction 
to the Old Testament adapted to the present state of know- 
ledge on the subject. The task is very delicate. Here 
especially the responsibility of the work was felt. The au- 
thor feared that prejudice and ignorance would be arrayed 
against him. He was aware that he should be confronted 
with traditional opinions. But he can honestly say, that he 
sought to follow truth amid all his speculations. Alive as 
he was to the sacredness of truth, he endeavoured to keep as 
near to it as he could. If, therefore, he has cut away some 
of the traditional fat of hereditary sentiments, he hopes that 
the diseased alone has been removed. Yet he can hardly 
expect to escape censure from parties wedded to antiquated 
notions. If attacked, it is far from his intention to reply ; 
since he has lived long enough to know that fighting for 
religious opinions is of little benefit. And indeed he is 
in no mood to heed the strictures of men, while listening 
to the painful lesson of affliction and adopting the lan- 
guage of the Psalmist, "God hath spoken once; twice have 
I heard this ; that power belongeth unto God." Hencefor- 
ward he would rather nestle in the consolations of religion 
than dispute about things which may have little relation to 
spiritual life. For he is firmly persuaded that pure reli- 
gion concerns the emotions more than the intellect. In 
the feelings and aspirations of the heart it finds its best 
element ; the deductions of the intellect being but remotely 
related. It is not necessary that the fellowship of the spirilt 
with God should be interrupted or marred by the investi, 
gations of historical criticism into the books of Scripture! 
As the Church has her appropriate department in awaken- , 
ing spiritual life, assimilating it to the great Fountain of ! ' 
blessedness, and raising it to the highest attainable perfec-V 
tion in the present world ; so scientific criticism has its own| 



PREFACE. vn 

field in which it may freely range as long as it leaves the 
word of God — that divine aliment which alone sustains the 
soul by becoming its very life — uninjured and entire. 

As the writer dislikes dogmatism and has rebuked it, he 
would be the last person to make the least approach to an 
assumption of infallibility. The more he reflects, he sees more 
of the difficult and mysterious in divine things. God has 
placed man in circumstances that require all the faith he can 
exercise to guide him to a higher sphere, amid the unsearch- 
able dispensations of Providence. Besides, the Bible itself 
is a difficult book. He has therefore learned to distrust his 
own judgment and look for light from above. 

The first two portions of the volume were printed more 
than a year ago, and therefore it was too late to use in 
their composition several recent treatises. But the refer- 
ences generally are somewhat sparing, conformably to the 
nature of the book. As it was written for a numerous class 
of readers the multiplication of allusions to works English, 
German, and French, was thought undesirable. 

The writer alone is responsible for all to which his name 
is prefixed. None of his fellow labourers is accountable for 
anything in his portion. 

In conclusion, the author is deeply impressed with a sense 
of the gratitude he owes to the great Author of revelation 
for enabling him to complete this book. A task involving 
labour and anxiety of no ordinary kind emphatically needed 
such help. Prosecuted as it was amid some circumstances 
unfavourable to mental abstraction, he cannot but be thank- 
mi that it is finished. Blessed be God who has supported 
hjim thus far ! Never did he feel more solemnly the force of 
tiie Psalmist's saying, " I am a stranger with thee and a 
sojourner, as all my fathers were." His friends Gieseler and 
Iiucke are gone; masters in their respective departments, 
tjoeir work on earth is over. The accomplished Hare, who 



Vlll PREFACE. 

would have looked most kindly on this book, is taken to his 
reward, leaving the English Church to mourn the loss of so 
great an ornament. And death has touched the writer still 
more closely by removing his eldest surviving son, in whom 
the best elements of a manly character, in connection with 
superior tastes, had begun to develop themselves.* But 
"there is a victory that overcometh the world, even our 
faith." 

* Sinclair Davidson, after a lingering illness, was taken at the age of 
17 years, on the 27th of April, to be for ever with Christ; leaving be- 
hind satisfactory evidence of his personal salvation. 



Independent College, 

Manchester, May 17th, 1856. 



CONTENTS 



THE SECOND VOLUME. 



PART I. 

CRITICISM OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
Chap. I. — Preliminary ----- Pages 1, 2. 

Chap. II. — Languages of the Old Testament. 

Hebrew and Chaldee. — Origin of the Name Hebrew. — Three Derivations of the Word. 
— Shemitic Dialect. — Different Names given to it. — Indo-germanic, Japhetic, or 
Arian Family of Languages. — Distinguishing Character of the Shemitic Family. 
— Its grammatical Character. — Shemitic trunk-language divided into three lead- 
ing branches ; the Aramaean, the CanaauitLsh, the Arabic. — State of the Hebrew 
Language prior to its earliest historical Period. — Hebrew substantially identical 
with the Canaanitish, Phenician, and Punic. — Abraham adopted from the Tribes 
in Canaan their common Tongue. — "Was Hebrew the primitive Language ? — 
Dialects in the Hebrew. — The History of the Language divided into three Pe- 
riods by Hiivernick and others. — Golden and Silver Ages, with the Writers 
belonging to each. — Time when the Hebrew ceased to be the Jews' living 
Tongue ..-.-.. 2—14 

Chap. III. — The Hebrew Characters _ - - - 14 — is 

I Chap. IV. — Hebrew Vowel Points ... - is— 22 

Chap. V Hebrew Accents • - - - 22, 23 

Chap. VI. — dfeans by which a Knoivledge of the Hebreio Language may 
be acquired. 
The historical, philological, and philosophical - 23—26 



X CONTENTS OF 

Chap. VIL — Criticism of the Text. 

History of the external Form of the Text. — Various Divisions noticed Pages 27 — 30 



Chap. VIII. — History of the Text itself. 

History of the unprinted Text. — False Headings. — Their Causes.— Condition of the 
Text before and at the close of the Canon. — Samaritans and Samaritan Penta- 
teuch. — Text lying at the Basis of the Septuagint.— State of the Text at the Time 
of Christ. — As seen from the Mishna and Gemara. — The Masorah. — Subsequent 
History of the unprinted Text. — Old and celebrated Exemplars - - 31 — 43 

Chap. IX. — History of the Printed Text. 

The chief Editions of the Hebrew Bible. — Controversy respecting the Integrity of 
the Hebrew Text.— Collations of Kennicott and De Rossi - - 43 — 46 



Chap. X. — Sources of Criticism. 

Ancient Versions, MSS., Parallels, Quotations, critical Conjecture 



Chap. XL — The Septuagint Translation 



Chap. XII. — Other ancient Greek Versions. 

Aquila. — Theodotion. — Symmachus. — Anonymous Translations. — Origen's Labours 

in connection with the LXX. — The Hexapla and Tetrapla Specimen Tables. — 

Different Texts of the LXX. — Leading Editions - 55 — 63 

Chap. XIII. — Versions from the Septuagint. 

Versio Vetus. — Syriac Versions. — Ethiopic. — Egyptian Versions Armenian.— 

Georgian. — Slavonic. — Gothic. — Arabic Versions - 63 — 68 

Chap. XIV. — Venetian- Greek Version . - - - 69 

Chap. XV. — Targums. 

Onkelos. — Jonathan Ben Uzziel. — Jerusalem Targum on Pentateuch. — Targums 
on the Hagiographa - - - - - - - 69—75 

Chap; XVI. — Old Syriac Version - 75—77 

Arabic Versions from it- - - - - - -77, 78 

Chap. XVII. — Arabic Translations - - - - 78 

Arabic Version of the Samaritan Pentateuch - - - - - 79 

Chap. XVIII. — Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch. 

Persian Version - - - - - - 79, 80 



THE SECOND VOLUME. XI 

Chap. XIX. — Vulgate Version - - *- - Pages 80 — 85 

Chap. XX. — Versions made from the Vulgate. 

Anglo-Saxon Version. — Arabic Versions. — Persian - 85,86 

Chap. XXI. — Rules for using Versions. 

Examples of the improper and proper Use of Versions - - 86 — 88 

Chap. XXII. — Hebrew Manuscripts. 

Synagogue Polls. — Private MSS. in the square Character. — Arrangement of the 
Books in MSS. — Tarn and Velshe Writing. — Age of MSS. how determined. — 
Their Country. — Kules respecting Country. — Observations on the Criteria of Age 
and Country. — Classifications of MSS. — Private MSS. in the Eabbinical Charac- 
ter. — Copies of the Jews in China. — Synagogue Roll brought by Buchanan from 
the East -..-.-.. 88—97 

Chap. XXIII. — A few of the oldest MSS. described. 

MSS. in Kennicott and De Rossi's Collections. — MSS. examined by Pinner at Odessa. 
— MSS. of the Samaritaa Pentateuch. — General observations on Codices. — Exam- 
ples of improper Emendation by a MS. or MSS. - 98 — 103 

Chap. XXIV. — Parallel Passages. 

Examples of improper and proper Use of this Source - 104, 105 

Chap. XXV. — Quotations. 

In the New Testament. — In Josephus. — In the Talmud and Rabbins. — In the 
Masorah. — The Use of the Masorah illustrated by Examples - 105—108 

Chap. XXVI. — Critical Conjecture. 

Examples of its Abuse and of its legitimate Application - - 108 — 111 

Chap. XXVII. — Application of the Sources of Criticism. 

Rules on the Subject - - - - - - - HZ 

Chap. XXVIII. — Tables of the Quotations from the Old Testament in 
the New. 

Three parallel Columns containing the Septuagint, Greek of New Testament, and 
Hebrew, with an English Version annexed to each. — Notes on the more impor- 
tant and difficult Quotations below - 113—174 

Chap. XXIX. — Sources xohence Quotations were taken - 175, 176 

Chap. XXX. — Introductory Formulas of Quotations - 176 — 180 



Xll CONTENTS OF 

Cha.p. XXXI. — On the external Form of Quotations. 

Passages in which the Hehrew has been supposed to be corrupt. — Circumstances on 
which the degree of accuracy with which Quotations adhere to their Originals 
depends. — The usage of Matthew, John, Paul, and Luke. — Randolph's Classifi- 
cation of Quotations ------ Pages 180—186 



Chap. XXXII. — On the internal Form of Quotations. 

The Use made of the Old Testament by Jesus Christ and the Apostles. — The spi- 
ritual or pneumatic View of the Quotations. — Examples of it — Quotations made 
by the Evangelists. — Prophecies and typical Parallels. — The Quotations of Paul. 
— Supposed Examples of Eabbinical Interpretation in Paul. — Mode of Quotation 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews. — Palfrey's Classification of Quotations, according 

to their internal Eorm Another proposed, with Examples under each Head. — 

List of Passages belonging to the fourth Head ... 186 — 201 



PART II. 

BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 

BOOK I. 

GENEBAL PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION. 

Chap. I. — Qualifications necessary to a good Interpreter. 

Intellectual and moral Qualifications. — The Bible to be explained on the same 
Principles as other Books. — Limitation to this Statement. — Refutation of 
Chalmers's Ideas about Biblical Interpretation - - - 202—211 

Chap. II. — Grammatical Interpretation. 

Means employed by the grammatical Interpreter for ascertaining the Sense of 
Words - 211—213 



Chap. III. — Study of the Text itself. 

The Original. — Examples of misunderstanding it. — Means by which the Usus 
loquendi of a dead Language is ascertained. — Examples. — Idioms. — Hendiadys. 

— Anacolutha. — Ellipsis. — Paronomasia Hyperbole. — Emphasis. — General 

Directions to the Interpreter, with Examples. — Oxymoron — Irony. — Interro - 
gation ......... 213—221 



Chap. IV. ■ — Study of the Context. 

Immediate Context. — Particulars included in it, viz., an Explanation by the Writer 
himself; the Light thrown upon one another by Subject and Predicate, Antithesis, . 



THE SECOND VOLUME. xiil 

Contrast, Opposition or Parallelism, Adjuncts: Examples appended. — Eemote 
Context. — Copious Illustrations of each. — Method of knowing the Commence- 
ment of a new Section or Subject, with Examples - - Pages 221 — 231 



Chap. V. — Study of Parallels. 

Gerard's Division. — Verbal and real Parallels. — Mode of proceeding in the Study 
of parallel Words and Phrases, with Examples. — Eeal Parallels divided. — In- 
distinctness in the Separation made between verbal and real Parallels Exam- 
ples. — Improper Examples of Parallels - 231 — 239 



Chap. VI. — External Sources of Grammatical Interpretation. 

Illustrations of their Necessity. — The Septuagint Version. — The Vulgate. — Old 
Syriac. — Targums. — Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion. — Saadias. — Modern 
Versions. — The best Latin ones. — German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Ita- 
lian, Dutch, Danish, Swedish, Polish, Hungarian, Bohemian, and English Versions. 
— The Usus hquendi retained in the earlier Commentaries and Lexicons. — Scho- 
liasts on the New Testament. — Different Kinds of Scholia. — General Remarks 
on them. — Glossaries, with Examples of their Use. — Analogy of Languages, 
Arabic, Syriac, Chaldee, Samaritan, &c. — The Uses of cognate Languages, with 
Examples. — Analogy of Languages in the case of the New Testament, with Ex- 
amples. — Eiclihstadt's Admonitions respecting the Analogy of Languages. — 
Use of Josephus and Philo in illustrating the Usus hquendi of the Greek Testa- 
ment. — Examples. — The ol koivo'l Greek Writers, then- Use and Abuse A 

Specimen of Beck's Cautions in applying the Productions of Greek and Latin 
Writers to discover the Usus hquendi. — The Septuagint, with Examples. — Rules 
for ascertaining the Signification of a Word - 239—267 



Chap. VII. — Biblical Exegesis. 

Things to be observed before the direct Interpretation of Sentences and Paragraphs. 
— Settlement of the right Construction of a Sentence. — Punctuation, Ellipsis, 
Interrogations, with illustrative Examples. — The Subject and Predicate, with 
Examples -------- 267—274 



Chap. VTTT. — Examination of the Passage itself 
Illustrative Examples - - - - 



Chap. IX. — Examination of Context. 

General Observations. — Use of Particles, with Examples. — Parentheses, Digres- 
sions. — Sentiments attributed to different Speakers. — Scope, general and special 
— Rules respecting Scope. — General Remarks on the Point. — Hlustrative Ex- 
amples. — Numerous Passages explained to show the Use of Context in Interpre- 
tation -------- 275—296 



Chap. X Parallels, or Parallel Passages. 

Parallels classified. — Table of Parallels. — Illustrative Examples. — Utility of them. 
Rules or Admonitions in their Application, with Examples under each rule 296 — 31 1 

vol. ii. a 



XIV CONTENTS OP 

Chap. XL — Analogy of Faith. 

Defined and explained. — Different Kinds of Analogy. — Elements lying at the 
Basis of it. Its Uses. — Consequences or Principles resulting from this Analogy. 

Pages 31 

Chap. XII. — ■ Ancient Versions. 

Examples of their Use in explaining Sentences, Passages, and Sections - 320, 321 

Chap. XIII. — On Historical Circumstances. 

An Examination of them under the technical Words quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, 
cur, quomodo, quando, with Examples .... 321 — 339 

Chap. XIV. — External Circumstances. 

Difference of these from the historical. — History, profane and ecclesiastical, with 
Examples of its Application. — Chronology, divided into Periods — Differences be- 
tween the Hebrew, Septuagint, Samaritan, and Josephian Computations. — Reasons 
in favour of the Hebrew or shorter Chronology. — Reasons for the longer Computa- 
tion, with Replies to them. — Peculiarities connected with the Scripture Reckoning. 
— Geography, with Examples of its Use in Interpretation. — Manners and Customs. 
• — Natural History. — A Knowledge of current religious Opinions, with Examples. — 
Ancient Learning and Philosophy, exemplified. — Coins, Inscriptions, and Medals, 
with illustrative Passages -.-_-- 340—359 



Chap. XV. — On Jewish Writings as Aids in Interpretation. 

The Apocryphal Books of the Old Testament. — Talmud, with Examples — Rabboth. 
— Megilloth. — Siphra, Siphri, and Mechilta. — Sohar. — Commentators who 
have applied this Source. — Admonitions. — Use of Philo exemplified. — Jo- 
sephus _--._... 359—366 

Chap. XVI. — Assistance derivable from the Greek Fathers in the Inter- 
1 pretation of Scripture. 

General Observations on the Fathers. — Examples ... 366—370 



Chap. XVII. — Limitations and Cautions in the Exegesis of the Bible. 

The Objects of Natural Science described popularly, not with Accuracy. — Examples. 
— Bible Diction borrowed from the erroneous Conceptions of the People. — Ex- 
amples — Did Inspiration extend to infallibility beyond religious and moral Truth ? 
— Observations tending to show that it did not. — Quotations from Pye Smith, 
Miall, Powell, Coleridge ; and the View of Arnold - - -371—376 



Chap. XVIII. — Commentaries. 

Scholia. — Commentaries. — "Versions. — Paraphrases. — Homilies. — Various Works 
characterised. — Hints on Commentaries - 377 — 385 



THE SECOND VOLUME. XV 

BOOK II. 

THE SPECIAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 

Chap. I. — Interpretation of the Figurative Language of Scripture. 

General Observations on Figures and Tropes. — Mode of distinguishing the tropical 
from the proper, with Examples. — A Word determined to be figurative by its Ad- 
juncts, by the general Context, by Parallels. — Sentences, Sections, and Paragraphs 
determined by the same Means, with Examples. — Explanation of tropical Diction. 
— General Eemarks ----__ Pages 385— 395 

Chap. II. — On the Interpretation of the Metonymies occurring in the 
Scriptuj-es. 

Metonymy of the Cause, with Examples. — Metonymy of the Effect, illustrated by 
Examples. — Metonymy of the Subject. — Metonymy of the Adjunct - 395—398 

Chap. III. — On the Interpretation of Scripture Metaphors. 

Sources of Metaphors. — Natural, artificial, sacred, and historical, with illustrative 
Examples Metaphors derived from poetic Fable ... 399 — 402 

Chap. IV. — Anthropopathy and Personification. 

Canon to be observed in the Case of Anthropopathies. — Two Kinds of Personification 
illustrated -------- 403—405 



Chap. V. — Allegory. 

The Word vaguely used. — Difference of Opinion respecting the Distinction between 
Metaphor and Allegory. — Three Forms of Allegory enumerated by Louth. — ■ 
Marsh's Kemarks on Allegory. — True Difference between Metaphor and Allegory. 
— Division of Allegory into pure and impure. — Examples. — Observations to assist 
in the Explanation of Allegory, with Examples under each Head - 405 — 411 



Chap. VI. — On the Interpretation of Scripture Parables. 

Derivation of the Word Parable. — Senses attached to the Word in Greek and 
Hebrew. — Parables distinguished from historical Allegories, Fables, and Proverbs. 
— Use and Advantage of the Par-able.— The first Excellence of a Parable, accord- 
ing to Lowth. — Illustrative Examples from the Old and New Testaments. — Second 
Excellence of a Parable, with Instances. — Lowth's third Excellence of a Parable. 
— Three Things in a Parable requiring Attention ; viz., the primary Eepresenta- 
tion, the Thing illustrated, and the tertium Comparationis. — Necessity of seizing the 
central Truth or prominent Idea. — For this End examine the Context preceding 
or following, including the Occasion of its Introduction, certain Phrases at the 
Commencement, a Knowledge of the Party to whom it was addressed, Explanation 
subjoined, a Phrase or Declaration appended. — Examples of each. — A Parable 

may be illustrated by another of parallel import Rule, that the Subject-matter 

a2 



CONTENTS OF 

should be studied. — Particular Examination of certain Parables. — The tertium 
Comparationis explained. — No definite Precept to enable the Expositor to separate 
Things significant from Things ornamental. — Observations of Tholuck on the 
point. — Olshausen's Affirmation. — Two Extremes in explaining the Parables, with 
Writers who have fallen into them. — Example of Excess from Gill. — Quotation 
from Olshausen. — Outline of an Interpretation for the Parable in Luke xvi. 1— 8. 
Canons or Eules for expounding Parables, with Examples. — Utility of Parables. 
— Observations on the Old Testament Parables. — Classifications of the New Tes- 
tament Parables by Gray, Greswell, Lisco, with Eemarks on each Pages 411 — 423 



Chap. VII. — On the Interpretation of Scripture Proverbs. 

Chief Excellences of Proverbs. — Examples. — Proverbs in the New Testament. — 
Writers on Scripture Proverbs - 423, 424 



Chap. VIII. — The Interpretation of the Poetical Parts of Scripture. 

Parallelism. — Various Views respecting the rhythmical Form of Hebrew Poetry. — 
Synonymous, antithetic, and synthetic Parallelism. — Jebb's introverted Parallelism. 
— Eemarks on it. — De Wette's Classification, with Examples. — General Observa- 
tions. — Koester's Arrangement of Job and Ecclesiastes. — Ewald's Introduction to 
Hebrew Poetry. — Alphabetical Poems. — Parallelism in the New Testament as 
discovered by Jebb. — Eemarks on the analogous Attempts of Boys and Forbes. — 
Four Kinds of Hebrew Poetry described: lyrical, gnomic, dramatic, and epic. — 
General Observations on the Poetry of the Bible - - - 425—434 



Chap. IX. — On the Interpretation of Types. 

Allegorical Interpretation. — Typical Interpretation. — Explanation of a Type. — Proof 
that typical Interpretation has a historical and scriptural Basis. — Philosophy of 
Types. — Things included in a proper Type. — All Types are not formally re- 
cognised as such in the New Testament. — Eefutation of the Eule that nothing is a 
Type except what is specified as such in the New Testament. — Imaginary Be- 
semblances constituting the Excess of typical Interpretation, exemplified. — Ee- 
marks on Fairbairn's Views. — Division of Types. — Chevallier's Classification. — 
Eules or Cautions to be observed in the Interpretation of Types. — Keach's Excess. 
— Typical Actions - - - - - 434 — 447 



Chap. X. — On the Interpretation of Prophecy. 

Proper function of Prophecy. — The Eelation of the divine and human in the Pro- 
phets. — Different Views. — Phenomena implying that the Minds of the Prophets 
were not wholly passive. — Hengstenberg's View, and the Arguments supporting 
it. — Eefutation of it. — Five Eules for the Interpretation of Prophecy, with Ex- 
amples. — The sixth relating to the twofold Eeference of Prophecy discussed and 
vindicated — Allusions to the Opinions of Wolfe and Arnold. — Examples of two- 
. fold Sense. — Eefutation of Fairbairn's Objections. — Eighteen other Eules of Inter- 
pretation --.-..._ 447 — 47! 

Chap. XL — On the Doctrinal Interpretation of Scripture. 

General Observations.— Three Principles accounting for the Diversities in the teach 



THE SECOND VOLUME. xvli 

ings of Christ and the Apostles. — Doctrinal Interpretation explained. — General 
Remarks or Rules respecting the Interpretation of Doctrines, with Examples. 

Pages 472—487 



Chap. XII. — On the Moral Interpretation of Scripture. 

General Remarks. — Observations on the Interpretation of the Ethics of Scrip- 
ture, with appropriate Examples. — Moral Examples. — Canons relating to 
them __-._-.- 487—499 



Chap. XIII. — On the Interpretation of the Promises and Threatenings of 
Scripture. 
General Remarks or Rules, with Examples - 499 — 503 



Chap. XIV. — On the Interpretation and Means of Harmonising Passages 
of Scripture which appear to be contradictory. 

Plain Principles necessary to be observed, with Examples. — Discrepancies between 
the Old Testament Writers. — Discrepancies between the New. — Discrepancies 
between the Old and New Testament "Writers. — The Genealogy of Christ as 
given by Matthew and Luke, explained. — Contradictions between Scripture and 
the Testimony of Heathen Authors. — Examples - - - 503 — 556 



Chap. XV. — On the inferential Reading of Scripture. 

Inferences drawn from the Words of Scripture, from Words in their immediate 
Connection, from Words in a wider Context, from the Scope of a Passage, from 
the general Scope of a Book or Epistle, from parallel Passages. — Examples of 
each. — Inferences deduced with Consideration of the Circumstances implied in, 
who, where, when? — Examples. — Cautions to be observed in drawing Inferences. 
— Examples of improper Inferences ----- 556 — 565 



Chap. XVI. — On the practical Reading of Scripture. 

Counsels on the Subject under different Heads - 



A BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT 
AND APOCRYPHA. 

Chap. I. — General Observatio?is on the Pentateuch. 

Genesis. 
Titles and Divisions. — Analysis of Contents. — Interpretation of the first three 
Chapters. — The Question of mythical Elements in the Rook. — Quotation from 



nii contents or 

Havernick. — Prophecies relating to Christ. — When composed, if Moses was the 
Writer - - - - - - - Pages 573—578 

Exodus. 
Title and Divisions. — Contents. — Passages relating to Christ. — When written, 
if by Moses. — Predictions in it. — The Plagues in Egypt. — Under what 
Egyptian Dynasty the Exodus and Sojourn generally of the Israelites hap- 
pened. — Length of Stay in Egypt. — Supposed mythic Elements in Exodus. 

578—581 

Leviticus. 

Title and Divisions Analysis of Contents. — Remarkable Prophecy in the Book. 

— Kites prescribed to the Israelites Part supposed to have a Mythical Cha- 
racter ._-.---- 581 — 583 



Numbers. 

Title and Divisions. — Contents. — If written by Moses, when. — Explanation of 

the History of Balaam. — Authenticity of the Oracle. — Two different Number ings 

of the Israelites in the Book. — Table of the Stations of the Israelites in the 

Wilderness. — Remarks on it • - - - - 583—587 



Deuteronomy. 

Title and Divisions. — Contents. — When written by Moses. — Various Hypotheses 

respecting the Thirty-fourth Chapter. — Prophecy relating to Messiah Mosaic 

Legislation divided into Three Parts, the Moral, the Ritual, and the Civil Code. — 
Observations on each. — Table arranging the several Parts of the Pentateuch under 
one or other of the three ..-.-. 587 — 593. 

Chap. II. — Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 

The Supplement-Hypothesis explained. — The Elohim and Jehovah Documents. 

Phenomena adduced in support of their Existence. — Phenomena made use 

of in discriminating the two Documents. — Discrepancies, and different Ac- 
counts of the same Occurrences, as exemplified in various Passages, with 
Modes of accounting for them, satisfactory or otherwise. — Different Traditions 
respecting one and the same Occurrence, as evidenced in many Passages, with 
the Attempts to explain them on other Grounds. — Diversity in the Usus 
loquendi — .Comparison of the different Books in this respect. — Views of the 
Conservative Critics. — General Observations on the Question. — Historical Stand- 
point of the Deuteronomy Laws. — De Wette's Arguments. — Views of the Unity 
of the Pentateuch entertained by Hengstenberg and his Followers, in Contents 
and Language. — Observations on them. — Proof that Moses was concerned in 

the Composition of the Pentateuch. — Passages bearing on the Point Deut. 

xxxi. as an Evidence. — Refutation of Hengstenberg and Havernick. — Book of 
the Law, what meant by it — Parts really written by Moses. — Evidence of the New 
Testament respecting the Authorship of the Pentateuch. — Testimony to its Author- 
ship in Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings. Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, the Prophetic 
Books. — Summary. — Internal Evidence that Moses did not write all the Pentateuch 
as now existing. — Different Styles of the Elohist and Jehovist. — Hupfeld's Views. 
— Time or Times when the two Documentists wrote. — Different Opinions about 
it. — Hypothesis of Delitzsch. — Supposed Allusions to the Mosaic Legislation in 



THE SECOND VOLUME. XIX 

Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and in Old Testa- 
ment Prophecy, as in Obadiah, Joel, Isaiah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zepha- 
niah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Amos, Hosea. — Allusions in the Poetical Literature of 

the Age of David and Solomon, in Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Solomon's Son°\ 

Observations on this Line of Evidence. — Mode of determining the Dates of the 
Elohistic and Jehovistic Documents. — Ewald's Hypothesis. — Concluding Ob- 
servations --,---- Pages 593—633 



Chap. III. — Book of Joshua. 

Comprises the History of thirty Years. — Divisions and Subdivisions Object of it. 

— Jehovistic and Elohistic Elements in it. — Proofs that it was compiled from 
various Documents. — Refutation of Keil. — Kind of Unity in the Book. — Chief 
Passages showing its Disunion. — Arguments in favour of the Joshua-authorship. 

— Arguments against. — Language as bearing on the Question of Date. — When 
compiled, with the Grounds of such Date. — Critics who date it after the Exile, with 
their Eeasons. — Refutation of them. — Did the Writer derive any Part of his In- 
formation from the Pentateuch ? — Question answered in the negative. — The 
second Part not necessarily written after Book of Judges. — Different Opinions 

respecting Authorship Historical Character and Credibility. — Had the Israelites 

a just Right to take Possession of Canaan ? — Samaritan Books called by Joshua's 
Name ------._ 633—646 



Chap. IV. — Judges. 

Who the Judges were. — Their Number. — Contents of the Book. — Object of the 
Writer. — Introduction to the first Division. — Remarks on the Unity of the Book. 
— Writer of Chapters xvii. — xxi. different from the Author of i — xvi. — Various 
Opinions respecting the Writer of Ch. i — xvi. — Passages bearing on the Age of 
the Book. — Time when it was composed. — Composition of the first Sixteen Chap- 
ters. — The Appendix- Writer. — Interval between the Authors of i — xvi. and 
xvii — xxi. — Remarks on the Chronology of the Work. — Remarks on its 
general Character. — External Evidence for the Genuineness of the Work 646—652 



Chap. V. — Ritth. 

Position of the Book. — Its Contents. — The Genealogy in Ch. iv — Date of the His- 
tory. — Authorship and Age ------ 652 — 655 



Chap. VI. — The Two Books of Samuel. 

Division into two. — Why called after Samuel. — Analysis of Contents. — Scope 
of the Work. — Derived from different Sources. — Alleged disunited, contradictory, 
and duplicate Character of the History here and there, with a Glance at the Reply of 
Keil. — General Remarks on the Unity. — Author and Age. —Different Nature of 
the History in Samuel and Kings. — Attempt to ascertain the Authorship particu- 
larly. — Time of the Compiler. — Historical Character of the Books.— Quoted or 
referred to in the New Testament ----- 655 — 664 



Chap. VII.— The Two Books of Kings. 

Originally one— Their Titles. —Analysis of Contents. — Scope of the Work,— Dc 
Wette's View of it.— Character of the History.— Evidences of the Writer's Carc- 
a 4 



CONTENTS OF 

fulness in reckoning Time, Uniformity of Style, &c. &c. — De Wette's View of the 
Unity of the Work combated. — Thenius's extreme. — Discordant Statements, Re- 
petitions, unsuitable Intercalations, supposed to point to original Diversity of 
Authorship. — Evidences of the Compiler, not the independent Writer. — Time and 
Authorship. — Place where the Writer resided. — Enumeration of the Sources 
employed. — How the Sources were used. — Connection of the Books with those of 
Samuel. — Historical Character and Credibility - - Pages 665— 673 



Chap. VIII. — The Books of Chronicles. 

Title in Hebrew and Greek. — Summary of Contents. — Relation between the Chro- 
nicles and other historical Books. — Comparison of Chapters i — ix. with other 
Parts. — Parallelism of ix. 1 — 34. and Nehemiah xi. 3 — 36. — Both taken from 
a common Source. — Table of the parallel Sections in Chronicles, Samuel, and 
Kings. — Discussion of the Questions arising out of them. — Scope of the Work. — 
Enumeration of the Sources employed by the Writer. — Discussion of their dif- 
ferent Characters. — Age and Author, —Why Ezra could not have been the Writer. 
— Rationalist Charges against him. — All that is true in these assigned to the right 
Causes, viz. to the Nature of the Sources, Tradition, Corruption of the Text, with 
illustrative Examples. — Existence of real Contradictions. — The Chronicles inferior 
to Samuel and Kings. — Accusations against the historical Character of the Sec- 
tions peculiar to the Work. — Not destitute of all Truth. — Chronicles and Ezra 
originally one Work. — Identity of the Close of the Chronicles and Commencement 
of Ezra explained .----_. 673 — 688 



Chap. IX. — Book of Ezra. 

Originally comprehended Nehemiah. — Analysis of Contents. — Keil's View of the 
Unity and Independence of the Book. — Attempt to analyse the Contents particu- 
larly. — Proofs that the same Person compiled Chronicles and Ezra. — Zunz's 
Attempt to impugn the Credibility. — Space of Time occupied by the Events narrated. 
— Why the Work has no marked Conclusion. — Passage in Justin Martyr thought 
by some to belong to Ezra vi. 21. - - - - 688 — 691 



Chap. X. — Book of Nehemiah. 

Title. — Analysis of Contents. — Particular Examination of eight Sections in the 
Book, with Attempt to discover the Authorship of each. — Work not written by 
Nehemiah. — Originally incorporated with Ezra. — Views of Keil and De Wette. 
— Naegelsbach's recent Attempt to show that Nehemiah and Chronicles were at 
first separate Books written by different Persons. — Observations upon it with the 
View of showing that both were at first united and compiled by one and the same 
Person. — Time when Ezra and Nehemiah were separated, according to Ewald. — ■ 
Testimonies in favour of their Unity. — Space of Time occupied by Nehemiah's 
Administration at Jerusalem - 692 — 697 



Chap. XL— The Book of Esther. 

Title. — Summary of Contents. — Scope of the Story. — Transactions recorded relate 
to Reign of Xerxes. — Time and Author. — Attempts to account for the Omission 
of the Name of God in the Book. — Historical Character and Credibility.— Difficulties 



THE SECOND VOLUME. XXI 

in the Narrative. — Canonicity of the "Work. — In the Canon before Christ. — State- 
ments of Luther respecting it. — Remarks on Hare's View of a Passage in Luther. 

Pages 697—703 



Chap. XII. — The Book of Job. 

Summary of Contents. — Substance and Form of the Poem. — Not pure Fiction. — 
Reasons alleged for considering it true and real History. — Refutation of them. — 
Correct View explained and vindicated. — Structure. — Not epic. — Partly dra- 
matic. — How far lyric. — Not a Poem according to some. — Doubts thrown upon 
the Prologue and Epilogue, xxvii. 7 — xxviii. 28., and xl. 15 — xli. 26. — The 
Book is a whole, as it existed at first. — The Problem discussed by the Writer. 

— The Solution offered. — Particular Development of the Theme as presented 
in the different Speeches. — Misapprehension of the Character and Speech of 
Elihu. — Hypothesis of Hirzel, Froude, and others, respecting the Scope of the 
Work, refuted. — Hypothesis of Stuhlmann, Bertholdt, Knobel, &c, refuted. — 
Hypothesis of Warburton and others, noticed. — Hypothesis of Baumgarten-Cru- 
sius. — Hypothesis of Ewald, stated and refuted. — Unity and Integrity of the 
Work. — Prologue and Epilogue genuine. — Objectors to Chapters xxvii. xxviii. 

— Reasons alleged for the Spuriousness of xl — xli. 26. — Futility of them. — Ar- 
guments against Authenticity of xxxii — xxxvii., with Answers. — Difficulties in 
the way of the Spuriousness of this Portion. — Search after the Age of Job, by 
Magee, Hales, and Kennicott. — Futility of it. — Age and Author of the Book. — 
View of such as put it in the pre-Mosaic Time, untenable. — View which makes 
it Mosaic. — Refutation. — View which places it in or after the Babylonian Exile. 

— Reasons for rejecting it. — Arguments of such as refer it to the flourishing 
Period of Hebrew Poetry or the Age of Solomon. — Beginning of Seventh Cen- 
tury most likely Date. — Country in which it was written. — Different Opinions. — 
Quotation from Herder. — Examination of xix. 25 — 29. — Arguments against its 
Reference to Christ and the Resurrection — Objections to this View invalid. 

704—736 



Chap. XIII. — The Book of Psalms. 

General Titles in Hebrew and Greek. — Division of the whole into five Books with 
concluding Doxologies — Value of this Division — De Wette's Classification. — 
Tholuck's. — Another Division proposed. — Diversity of Arrangement between 
the Hebrew, and the Greek and Vulgate Versions. — Differences in Hebrew 
MSS. — Titles of the Psalms — Particular Explanations of each. — Explanation 
of Selah. — Views respecting it of Gesenius, Hengstenberg, Sommer, and Keil. 

— Genuineness of the Titles. — Arguments for, with Replies Considerations 

against their Originality. — Authors named in the Titles, with the Psalms ascribed 
to each. — Anonymous Psalms. — None of the Prophets named in the Titles. — The 
Question of Maccabean Psalms discussed. — Collection and Arrangement of the 
Psalms. — View of Hengstenberg and Keil. — Objections to it. — Attempt to show 
the Method of Arrangement. — When the entire Collection was completed. — Aim of 
the Collectors. — No pervading Principle of Arrangement. — Usage of the Names 
Jehovah and Elohim. — Different Opinions. — The Psalms lyric. — Earlier lyric 
Specimens. — Lyric Poetry not exclusively devoted to the Service of Religion. — 
Germs of other Species in the Lyric. — Dramatic Psalms. — Horsley's Opinion. — 
Dialogue Psalms. — The Age and Language of particular Psalms. — Messianic 
Character. — Two Extremes. — Examples of Messianic Psalms. — Canon to de- 
termine them. — Noyes's Opinion. — Horsley's View of the Psalms composed by 



CONTENTS OF 

David, being prophetic. — Refutation. — Universal Adaptation of the Psalter. — 

Quotation from Luther. — Ethics of the Book Imprecatory Psalms. — Different 

Views stated and refuted. — Hengstenberg's Opinion specially examined. — The 
true View. — The Spirit of Love not identical in the Old and New Testaments. — 
Riggenbach's Essay on the Love of Neighbours in the Old and New Testaments. 
— Quotation from Durell. — List of Passages cited from the Psalms in the New 
Testament. — The one hundred and fifty-first Psalm given - Pages 736 — 769 



Chap. XIV. — Book of Proverbs. 

General Observations on the Book. — Titles in Hebrew and Greek. — Summary of 
Contents. — Scope of the Work. — Examination of Authorship. — Title to second 
Part. — Solomon did not put it in its present Form. — Examination of Author- 
ship of the first Part. — Did not proceed from Solomon. — Reasons for conclud- 
ing that the third Part was not written by Solomon. — Investigation of the fourth 
p ar t. — Fifth Part contains the Words of Agur. — The sixth those of Lemuel. — 
Proper Translation of xxx. 1. — Last Part alphabetical. — Book in its present 
Form at the beginning of the sixth Century. — Manner in which the Book origi- 
nated. — The entire Work put into its present Form by one Person. — Why the 
final Redactor called the whole, Proverbs of Solomon. — Quotations from the 
Work in the New Testament. — Its Ethics. — Examination of Wisdom in Chap, 
viii. — View which refers Wisdom to the second Person in the Trinity. — Hol- 
den's Arguments in favour of it. — Refutation of them. — General Remarks on 
the 8th Chapter ---.... 769—781 



Chap. XV. — The Book of Ecclesiastes. 

Title. — Summary of Contents. — Three Sections in each of the four Discourses. — 
Theme of the Book. — How developed. — The ethical Philosophy in it. — Plan 
and Scope. — Vaihinger's Merit in apprehending them. — 'Charges against it. — 
Accusations of De Wette and Knobel, with Refutation. — Book compared with 
Proverbs. — Authorship. — Why attributed to Solomon. — Reasons for rejecting 
his Authorship. — Character of the Language strongly against Solomon. — Pres- 
ton's Statements. — Similarity hetween Proverbs and Ecclesiastes accounted for. 
— Why Solomon introduced as speaking. — Holden's Assertions. — Date of the 
•\Y or k;. — Character of Contents as bearing on the Point. — Author belonged to 
the later Period of the Persian Rule. — Other Opinions respecting Date. — Ana- 
logy of Ecclesiastes to Wisdom of Solomon. — Belonged to the Canon in Time of 
Christ - - - 781—790 



Chap. XVI. — Song of Solomon. 

Title. — Subject, human or spiritual Love. — Arguments in favour of the allegorical 
Interpretation. — Diversity of Opinion among the Advocates of the allegorical. — ■ 
Arguments for the literal Interpretation. — Diversity of Opinion among the Lite- 
ralists. — Difficulty of deciding. — Reception into the Canon implies its sacred 
Character. — View of Warburton and Gleig. — Liberty to depart from the Opinion 
of such as put it into the Canon. — Stuart's Remarks, objectionable. — Advo- 
cates of the literal above the Suspicion of Neology. — Considerations adverse to the 
allegorical Explanation.— Misconceptions of the Allegorists. — Spiritual Explana- 
tion far-fetched. —Form of the Work. — An Idyl or Number of Idyls. — A 
Drama or pastoral Eclogue. — An Epithalamium. — Not a regular Drama. — Unity 
and Integrity of the whole. — Object of the Poem. — Summary containing the 



THE SECOND VOLUME. XX111 

Sections or Scenes. — The Poem fraught with moral Instruction. — The Persons 
who put it into the Cauon erroneously regarded it as allegorical. — Author. — 
Internal Evidence against Solomon. — How long after Solomon. — Dr. Smith's 
Opinion erroneous. — Alleged Peculiarities of Diction favourable to a late Date. — 
Explanation of them. — Author lived twenty-five or thirty Tears after Solomon. — 
Divine Authority of the Book. — Its Canonicity. — Inspiration. — Erroneous 
Views -.-.-.. Pages 790 — 809 



Chap. XVII. — General Observations on the Prophets. 

Theology of the Old Testament divided by Oehler into three Parts. — Different 

Appellations of a Prophet explained. — A Prophet described. — Qualification 

In what sense Adam and Eve, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, 
Miriam, Aaron, the seventy Elders, Balaam, had the Gift of Prophecy. — Moses 
the greatest of the Prophets. — The Succession of the particular Prophets to 
whom Moses referred did not begin till Samuel's Time. — How the Interval was 
occupied. — The Prophets, from Samuel to Malachi, characterised. — Belation of 
Prophecy to the Law. — Application of the Law's fundamental Principles by the 

Prophets. — The Prophetic Gift not a perpetual Possession Qualifications for 

receiving the Spirit. — Outward Confederations Divine Call to the Prophetic 

Office. — Were the Prophets inaugurated by Unction ? — The Gift not attached 
exclusively to Sex, Age, or Condition. — Examples illustrative. — Hengstenberg's 
Picture of the Schools of the Prophets. — A Glance at such Schools. — Description 
of the Prophets external to the Schools. — Prophets generally asked before deli- 
vering then- Prophecies. — Places in which they stood. — Dialogues between them 
and others. — Outward Gesticulations. — Didactic Sig.is or Symbols. — Examples. 
— Earliest Specimens of Prophetic Writing.— No written Prophecies after Moses's 
now extant, older than 800 B.C. — Transition of oral into written. — How the 
Prophets first wrote. — Connection between Prophecies as orally delivered and 
written. — Some not delivered. — Collection of written — The form of Prophecies. 

— Media through which the prophetic Materials were communicated. — Mashal 
or Allegory. — Dreams. — Visions. — Symbolical Acts. — Reasons for supposing 
that the symbolical Acts were internal. — Criteria of genuine Prophecy. — A Sign 
or Wonder. — The Accomplishment of Prophecy. — Speaking in the Name of the 
Lord. — Modes of Prophecy. — Dreams. — Visions. — Converse with the Deity. — 
Bath-Kol — Prophetism of the Old Testament occupies about 700 Years. — Di- 
vided into four Periods. — The older Period characterised. — This, the Iron Age. 

— Prophets belonging to it. — The Assyrian Period described, with those belong- 
ing to it. — This, the Golden Age of Prophecy. — The Chaldean Period charac- 
terised, with its Prophets. — The post-exile Period, and those belonging to it. — 
The last two, the Silver Age. — Brief Glance at the leading Characteristics of the 
thre? successive Ages. — All the prophetic Literature not extant. — Evidences of 
the Pact. — Prophetic Books not now as at first. — State of the Text. — Lists of 
the Prophets. — Classification of the Prophetical Books. — Different Order in the 
Hebrew and Greek Bibles. — Various Tables of the prophetic Books. — A new 
Table given -------- 809 — 834 



Chap. XVIII. — The Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 

Particulars of the Prophet's Life. — When he began to prophesy. — Whether his 
Ministry extended to the Beign of Manasseh. — Considerations for and against. — 
Beginning, End, and Duration, of his prophetic Labours. — Arrangement and Plan 
of his Discourses. — Various Views. — Hypothesis of Drechsler. — Observations 
on it. — True View. — Analysis of Contents. — Genuineness and Dates of Pieces 



XXIV, CONTENTS OF 

in ch. i — xii. specially considered. — Pieces in the Second Division, xiii — xxiii. — 
Genuineness and Times of each examined. — Prophecy in xxiv — xxvii. — Why 
ascribed to some other than Isaiah. — Its general Meaning. — Evidences of its 
Authenticity. — Time when it was composed. — Examination of the Prophecies 
in xxviii — xxxiii. — Why xxxiv. and xxxv. assigned to the Babylonish Captivity. 
— Proofs of their Isaiah-authorship. — Their general Import. — xxxvi — xxxix. 
considered. — Different Views respecting them. — Connection between them and 
2 Kings xviii. 13 — 20., xix. — Chapters xl — lxvi. — Their Unity commonly ad- 
mitted. — Arguments against their Authenticity, as stated by Knobel. — General 
Observations on the Section, embodying Principles of Exposition in favour of its 
Authenticity. — Positive Arguments in its behalf. — Distribution of it into Sec- 
tions. — Views of Kiickert, Havernick, and Riietschi. — Prophecies which speak of 
the Servant of God, viz. xlii. 1 — 9., xlix. 1 — 9., 1. 4 — 11., li. 16., lii. 13 — liii. 12., 
lxi. — Description given of the Servant. — Chief Opinions respecting this Servant 
of God, with Remarks on each. — Messianic View explained and defended. — Not 
exclusively Messianic. — Alexander quoted. — Truth in various un-messianic 
Interpretations. — Degree of Unity and Plan in the Work. — The final Redaction 
not Isaiah's. — All his Prophecies not extant. — Reasons for assigning the Col- 
lection and Arrangement of them to another. — Remarks on the general Con- 
tents, Form, and Style of the Prophet. — Quotations from Lowth and Ewald. 

Pages 835—868 

Chap. XIX. — On the Book of Jeremiah. 

Notices of the Life of Jeremiah. — Division of his Prophecies. — Pieces in the first 
Part separately considered, viz. i — xxix., in their general Purport and Dates. — 
Subdivisions of xl — xlv. separately examined in their Meaning and Dates. — Those 
of xlvi— li. specially considered. — Chapter lii. — Table showing at what Time the 

separate Prophecies were delivered. — Diversities of Expositors on this Point 

Authenticity of x. 1—16. denied by some. — Grounds for maintaining it. — Chap, 
xxv. \\b — 14a. pronounced spurious by Hitzig. — xxvii. 7. not spurious. — Cause 
of its rejection by many. — Chap, xxxiii. 14 — 26. not an Interpolation. — Chap, 
xxxix. 1, 2. 4—13. genuine. — xxvii. xxviii. xxix. rejected by some Their Au- 
thenticity maintained xxx — xxxiii. defended xlviii. not spurious, as Hitzig 

supposes. — 1. li. rejected as unauthentic, or pronounced an Interpolation and later 
Elaboration, by several Critics. — Arguments against these Chapters. — Refutation 
of them. — Different Arrangement of Jeremiah's Prophecies in Hebrew and Sep- 
tuagint. — Hypothesis to account for the Diversities. — Most probable one. — ■ 
Comparison of the respective Peculiarities in each Text. — General concluding 
Remarks. — Origin of the Collection. — Different Views. — Attempt to ascertain 
it. — Mode in which the different Parts were put together. — Predictions relating 
to Messiah. — Passages quoted in New Testament. — Remarks on Jeremiah's Mode 
of Writing, Style, and Diction. — His symbolical Images and Actions - 868 — 885 

Chap. XX. — The Lamentations of Jeremiah. 

Title in Hebrew and Greek.— Book formed no Part of the national Collection Not 

composed on the Death of Josiah. — Summary of Contents. — When, and on what 
Occasions, each was composed. — Isolated Productions, or a connected whole ? — 

Their Form acrostic or alphabetical. — Not always carried out Testimonies for 

the Jeremiah-authorship. — Sentence at the Commencement of the Greek Transla- 
tion. — Thenius's Opinion of it. — Circumstances adduced by Thenius to show that 
only the second and fourth Elegies belong to Jeremiah. — Refutation. — Evidences 
of Identity in Authorship. — Their Style. — Lowth's Praises excessive. — De Wette 
quoted — Position of Lamentations in the Bible ... 885 — 893 



THE SECOND VOLUME. XXV 

Chap. XXI. — The Book of Ezekiel. 

Notices of the Prophet's Life. — Summary of Contents. — Order of the Prophecies 

Times when they were delivered. — Symmetrical Division of the Book. — The 
foreign Nations threatened, limited to seven. — Authenticity of Ezekiel's Prophecies. 
— Attacks of Oeder, Vogel, and Corrodi, and of an anonymous Writer in the 
Monthly Magazine for 1798. — Passage in Josephus where he speaks of two Books 
of Prophecies. — Three Views of it considered. — Zunz's assertions. — Refuted by 
Havernick. — Manner in which the present Book was made up. — Different Conjec- 
tures of Hitzig and others. — The Masoretic Test corrupt. — Remarks on Ezekiel's 
Character, Manner, and Style. — Lowth, Michaelis, &c, quoted. — Peculiarities of 
Diction.— Originality of_Ezekiel. — Messianic Prophecies. — Examination of xxxvi., 
xxxvii. ; xxxviii., xxxix. ; and xl — xlviii. — Particular Interpretation of the last. — 
Refutation of Henderson's literal Explanation. — Reasons for adopting the spiritual. 
— Plans of the Temple and its Buildings .... Pages 893 905 



Chap. XXII. — Book of the Prophet Daniel. 

Notices of Life of Daniel. — Contemporary with Ezekiel. — Statement of Time in ch. i. 
1. — Different Explanations of it given and discussed. — A chronological Mistake. 
— Supposed mythic Elements put around Daniel's Person. — Two Parts in the Book. 
— Contents of each Chapter and Section — The Vision of the four Beasts in ch. vii. — 
The ten Kings symbolised by the ten Horns. — The little Horn. — Vision in ch. viii. 
explained. — Explanation of Vision inch.x — xii. — The four Kingdoms enumerated. 
— Different Opinions. — Traditional View of the fourth. — Arguments against it. — 

Appeal to New Testament. — Remarks on Auberlen's Sentiments Examination 

of the Prophecy of the seventy Weeks. — References to Wieseler, Hofmann, 
Delitzsch, Hengstenberg, Havernick, and Auberlen. — How far Messianic. — Bear- 
ing of the New Testament on ix. 26. — Daniel's own View of the fourth Empire. — 
Unity of the Book. — Evidences of one Author. — Arguments for the Daniel-author- 
ship. — Arguments against, with Answers to each. — Difficulties in the way of the 
late or Maccabean Age of the Work. — In its present State did not proceed from 
Daniel himself. — Evidences of this. — The Greek Translation of the Book. — 
Editions of it. — Variations between it and the Hebrew. — Attempts to account for 
them. — Additions in the Greek. — The Song of the Three holy Children. — Its 
Position in Copies. — The History of Susanna and its Position. — The History of 
the Destruction of Bel and the Dragon, and its Position. — How these Pieces origi- 
nated. — Prayer of Asanas and Song of the Three Children not from different 
Authors. — Original Text of the first Piece, not Aramaean but Greek. — Different 
Versions of it. — The History of Susanna not proper History. — Evidences of its 
fictitious Character. — How it originated. — Written in Greek. — Different Texts and 
Versions. — The History of Bel and the Dragon fabulous. — Evidences of this. — 
Inscription in the LXX. — Originally written in Greek. — Texts of various Ver- 
sions — Early mention of Susanna. — Currency among the Fathers of these Addi- 
tions to Daniel. — Estimation in which they were held - - 905 — 941 



Chap. XXIII. — On the Book of Hosea. 

Notices of Hosea's Life. — Under whom, and how long, he prophesied.— Spuriousness 
of the Superscription. — Argument in favour of the Correctness of Hezekiah in 
Title. — Uncertainty of it. — Prophecies refer chiefly to Israel. — Horsley's Opinion 
incorrect. — Divisions of the Book. — Nature and Meaning of the Transactions re- 
corded in first and third Chapters. — Different Views examined. — True Opinion 
given. — Second Division of the Book. — Hosea himself arranged his Prophecies. — 



XXvi CONTENTS OP 



Ewald's Opinion.— Integrity of the Book questioned by Eedslob. — Manner, Style, 
and Diction. — Quotations in the New Testament. — Not many Messianic Refer- 
ences. — Main Subject of Hosea's Descriptions - - Pages 941 — 946 



Chap. XXIV. — Book of the Prophet Joel. 

Notices of Life.— Various Opinions respecting the Time when he lived. — Investiga- 
tion of the true Period. — Lived between 877 and 847 b. c. — Occasion of the Pro- 
phecy. — Its two Parts. — How connected. — Are the Locusts to be explained 
literally or tropically ? — Arguments on both Sides. — No double Sense. — Messianic 

Passages Style, Manner, and Language of the Prophet. — Ewald's Opinion that 

he wrote more ------- 946—950 



Chap. XXV. — Book of the Prophet Amos. 

Notices of Life. — When he prophesied Occasion which led to his Predictions. — 

Divisions of the Book. — Impossible to assign the different Portions and Discourses 
to specific Times. — The first Division introductory. — Importance and Position of 
Amos in the Development of Israelitism. — Manner, Style, and Language. — 
Jerome's Assertion. — Lowth quoted. — What Jerome referred to. — Allusions to 
Amos in other Prophets. — Acquainted with the Pentateuch, —r- Quotations in the 
New Testament ------- 950—953 



Chap. XXVI Book of the Prophet Obadiah. 

Notices of Life. — Different Views of the Time at which he lived. — Particular Inves- 
tigation of the exact Time with reference to Havernick, Caspari, Keil, Delitzsch, 
&c — Two Parts in the Prophecy. — Manner and Language. — Comparison of Pro- 
phecies against Edom by Isaiah, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and Obadiah - 953—956 



Chap. XXVII. — Book of the Prophet Jonah 

When the Prophet lived. — Two Parts in the Book Different Hypotheses respecting 

the Contents. — A literal History. — Arguments for. — A mere Fiction, Allegory, or 
Myth. — A prophetic Tradition poetically elaborated and ornamented. — On what 
Mythus based. — Some Objections made to the literal Character of the Nar- 
rative, of no weight. — Circumstances really militating against the Literality. — 
Scope of the Book. — By whom and when composed. — Different Views. — A con- 
nected whole. — Lost Oracle of the Prophet. — Difference between this and other 
Prophecies. — Jonah not a Type of Christ .... 956 — 960 



Chap. XXVIII. — Book of the Prophet Micah. 

A Native of Moresheth. — Under whom he prophesied, and where. — Authenticity of 
the Inscription questioned. — Reasons for maintaining it. — Division of the Book. — 
Connection and Progress of the whole. — Originated under Hezekiah. — The par- 
ticular Prophecies incapable of Separation as to Time. — • Predictions in the Book 
which were or are to be fulfilled. — Messianic Prophecies. — Ideas, Manner, Style, 
and Rhythm. — Hales's Attempt to put together and interpret three Passages. — 
Objections to it-- - - - - - 960 — 964 



THE SECOND VOLUME. • XXVH 

Chap. XXIX. — Book of the Prophet Nahum. 

Personal History. — Time when he prophesied. — Different Hypotheses. — Investigation 

• of the true Time. — Contents of the one Oracle. — Inscription. — Second Part of it 
not written by the Person who wrote the first. — Manner, Style, Diction, and 

• Ehythm. — Originality of Nahum. — Reminiscences from older Prophets. — Hitzig's 
Attempt to show Chaldaising Character of Language. — Ewald also referred to. 

Pages 964—966 



Chap. XXX. — Book of the Prophet Rabakkuk. 

Notices of his Life. — When he lived. — Different Views. — Particular Investigation 
of the correct Time. — Belonged to Reign of Josiah. — Dramatic Form of the Pro- 
phecy. — Its lyric Character. — Imitations of other Scriptures. — Manner, Style, and 
Rhythm. — Michaelis's Judgment ----- 966 — 969 



Chap. XXXI. — Book of the Prophet Zephaniah. 

Notices of personal History. — Belonged to Reign of Josiah. — Time under Josiah 
investigated. — Reasons for placing him after the eighteenth Year not valid. — Be- 
longs to 62 7 b. c. — Book consists of one Prophecy. — Its general Character and 
Purport. — The Chaldeans, not the Scythians, threatened. — Other Peoples referred 
to. — General Manner and Style. — Reminiscences out of earlier Prophets. — Rhythm 
and Diction -------- 969 — 972 



Chap. XXXII. — Book of the Prophet Haggai. 

Notices of Life. — Four Prophecies in Book, embodying the Substance of all his oral 
Discourses. — Summary of Contents. — To whom addressed. — Messianic Passages. 
— Prophet's Ideas of Zerubbabel and the Messianic Time. — Character of his 
Prophecies. — General Manner and Style. — Examination of ii. 7. — Its true 
Sense -------- 972—974 



Chap. XXXIII. — Book of the Prophet Zechariah. 






Son of Berechiah and Grandson of Iddo. — Ezra v. 1. and vi. 14. not inconsistent with 
this. — Notices of his Life. — Book divided into two Parts. — Subdivision of them. — ■ 
Meaning of the Contents of first Part. — Meaning of the Discourses in second Part. 
— Authenticity of last Part. — Arguments in favour of it. — Arguments against. — 
Difficulty of deciding. — The second Part written by one *Person. — Chief Con- 
siderations against its Authenticity. — When the "Writer lived. — Explanation of the 

Inscription. — The Author Zechariah mentioned by Isaiah. — Chaps, ix. x. andxi 

xiv. written at the same Time. — Quotation of Matthew xxvii. 9. fromZecn. xi. — 
Hengstenberg's Opinion untenable. — No Error has crept into the Text of 
Matthew. — First Part mostly in Prose. — General Manner of the Writer. — Diction 
incorrectly described by Blayney. — Character of the Visions. — Difficulty of under- 
standing the Prophet. — Messianic Ideas. — Blayney quoted with Disapproba- 
tion --------- 975 — 984 



Chap. XXXIV. — Book of the Prophet Malachi. 

Notices of his Person. — Different Opinions respecting him. — Name not Official. — 
Derivation of it. — Particulars respecting his Life and Times. — Three Sections 



1 CONTENTS OF 

in the Book. — Summary of their Contents. — Eelatiori between the oral and 
written Prophecies. — Opinions of Eichhorn, Ewald, and Havernick. — Manner 
of Writing. — Diction. — Incorrect Assertion of a Writer in the Cyclopaedia of 
Biblical Literature. — Canonical Authority ... Pages 984 — 986 



INTRODUCTION TO THE APOCRYPHA. 

Chap. I. — The Third Booh of Esdras {First Esdras, English Version). 

Different Appellations of the Book in different Documents. — Not in Complutensian 
Polyglott, nor translated by Luther. — Titles in the LXX. — Mention of Book 
by the Greek and Latin Fathers. — Character as a Greek Translation from the 
Old Testament. — Summary of Contents. — Particular Comparison of it with the 
Canonical Writings. — Integrity. — Zunz's Opinion. — Translator. — Time when 
he lived — Versions. — Object of the Book. — De Wette's Judgment on its Value. 
— Application to the Criticism of the Hebrew Text - 987 — 990 

Chap. II. — The Fourth Book of Esdras {Second Esdras, English 

Version). 

Different Appellations of the Book. — Three Texts described and characterised, viz. 
the Latin, Arabic, and Ethiopic. — Contents. — Differences in Extent between the 
Texts. — Greek Text at the Basis of the Latin. — Supposed Quotations of it in 
early Fathers. — Not cited by Irenaaus. — The Greek not translated from Hebrew. 
— When and by whom ch. iii — xiv. was written. — Of Jewish Origin. — Reasons 
for placing Writer prior to Christ. — Different Interpretations of the twelve Wings 
and three Heads, &c. belonging to the Eagle in Chapter ix. — Book written 
in Egypt about 40 b. c. — Early Interpolations. — Appendix (xv. xvi.) written 
by a Christian in Egypt. — First two Chapters Christian and Egyptian also. — 
Ethiopic and Arabic Versions better than the Latin. — Diversities in the Latin 
itself, as pointed out by Van der Vlis. — General Observations. — Not the 
authentic Production of Ezra. — Whiston's Opinion. — Book rejected by Ro- 
manists ----____ 990 — -995 



Chap. III. — The Book of Tobit. 

Title. — Summary of Contents.— Different Texts.— Mutual Relation of the Texts.— 
Investigations of the common Basis by Ilgen and Fritzsche. — Greek Text of LXX. 
simplest and best. — Original of Greek probably Hebrew. — Reasons for this 
View. — Fritzsche's Opinion. — Holmes's and Parsons's Collections of MSS. — 
Syriac Version in London Polyglott. — Greek Text printed by Tischendorf 
from an ancient Codex, identical with that in some of Holmes's MSS. — Cha- 
racterised. — The two Hebrew Texts described. — The old Latin. — Angelo 
Mai's printed Citations. — Language of the old Latin. — The Original of it. — 
Latin Text in Vulgate. — How Jerome used the Chaldee. — Contents not his- 
torical. — Ilgen's View. — The whole fabulous. — Difficulties in the History and 
Geography. — Object of the Writer. — Date of the Book.— Different Opinions.— 
Probable Time. — Written in Palestine. — Value. — Uncanonical. — How re- 
garded by the Fathers. — Origen's Opinion of it not consistent.. — Estimate of 
Work in the Latin Church ------ 996 — 1004 



THE SECOND VOLUME. XXIX 

Chap. IV.— The Book of Judith. 

Summary of History. — Several Texts of it. — The Greek. — Translated from a 
Hebrew Original. — Proofs. — Syriac Version. — Old Latin. — Vulgate. — How 
Jerome proceeded in making his Version. — Did not translate from Chaldee.— 
Supposed Citations by the Fathers from lost Texts. — Narrative not historical. — 
Geographical and historical Inaccuracies. — Attempts to bring the Nebuchadnez- 
zar of the Book into connection with true History. — Different Opinions. — Diffi- 
culties in assigning the Story either to the pre-exile or to the post-exile Time. — ■ 
Grotius's View. — Book consists of pure Fiction. — Different Appellations applied 
to it. — General Character of the Story. — Attempt to ascertain the Date. — The 
Writer a Palestinian Jew in the second Century B.C. — How the Fathers regarded 
the Book ------. Pages 1004—1010 



Chap. V. — On the Rest of the Chapters of the Booh of Esther ivhich are 
found neither in the Hebrew 7ior in the Chaldee. 

Additions to the Book of Esther specified and enumerated, with their Positions in LXX. 
and Vulgate. — Spuriousness of them. — Differences in MSS. of the LXX. — 
Ussherian Text. — The original Greek. — Eeasoning of Scholz in favour of a 
Hebrew or Aramaean Original. — Translator of authentic Esther into Greek and 
Writer of the Apocryphal Parts, not identical. — Subscription in Greek MSS. — 
The Parts written by an Egyptian Jew in second Century b. c. — Versions of these 
Additions. — The old Latin characterised. — Jerome's Latin. — Mention by the 
Fathers. — Council of Trent's and Luther's Estimate of them - 1010 — 1012 



Chap. VI. — The Book of Wisdom. 

Titles. — Division into Parts, with Summary of Contents in each. — Attempts to 
disturb the Unity. — Considerations in favour of Unity. — Endeavours to im- 
pugn the Integrity. — Christian Interpolations assumed by Grotius. — Work not 
of Christian Origin. — Tregelles's View of a Passage in the Muratorian Canon 
favourable to the Christian Origin. — Passage does not relate to the Apocryphal 
Book. — Opinions respecting the original Language. — Originality of the Greek. — 
Internal Evidences. — The Author not Solomon, nor Jesus Sirach, nor Philo. — 
Arguments against Philo. — Assumption of a different Philo from the Alexan- 
drian. — Not written by Zerubbabel. — Author unknown. — Not one of the Thera- 
putas or Essenes. — An Egyptian Jew of Alexandria. — Time when he lived de- 
termined. The Author's Aim. — Personates Solomon. — General Estimate of the 
Book. — The Style. — Investigation of the Sources whence the Author's religious 
Doctrine was derived. — Attempt to assign some Particulars to each Source. — 
Whether his Idea of the Divine Wisdom was moulded by the Pantheistic-emanistic 
System of the East. — Daehne's Opinion. — Sentiments of Welte and Scholz 
respecting the Source of the Doctrine. — State of Greek Text. — Latin Text in Vul- 
gate described. — Syriac and Arabic Translations. — Armenian Version. — Others 
enumerated. — Earliest Traces of the Work. — Passages in the Pauline Epistles 
supposed to refer to it. — Similar Reminiscences in the Catholic Epistles and James. 
— Early Notices in the Fathers, and patristic View of the Book - 1013 — 1024 



Chap. VII. — The Wisdom of Jesus So?i of Sirach. 

Titles. — Resemblance to Proverbs. — Ideas, Sources, and Ethics of the Writer. — 
Contents. — No pervading Unity. — Different Opinions. — Eichhorn's Division. — * 



CONTENTS OP 

Jahn's. — Scholz's. — Conjectures respecting the Author. — Not a Priest. — Inves- 
tigation of the Date. — Conflicting Views. — Attempt to ascertain the Date par- 
ticularly. — The Translator's Age about 130 B.C. — Author's Age about 180 b.c. — 
Hitzig's Date. — Scholz's. — Jerome's Statement respecting his seeing the Hebrew. 
— Attempt to discover the Meaning of this Word. — The Greek translated from 
Hebrew. — Internal Proofs. — The Translator a Palestinian Jew. — Did not ap- 
pend the 51st Chapter. — Second Prologue in the Complutensian Polyglott, and 
Vulgate. — Whence taken. — State of the Greek Text. — Comparison of it in 
different Editions. — Variations, how accounted for. — Value of the Book. — 
Persons addressed. — Leading Sentiments of Writer. — Supposed Traces of Alex- 
andrian Theosophy. — Influence of Greek Philosophy perceptible. — Style. — 
Talmudical Notice of Jesus Son of Sirach. — The two Collections of Proverbs under 
the name of Ben-Sira. — Investigation of Ben-Sira's Personality. — Not identical 
with Jesus Son of Sirach. — Syriac Versions. — Latin Version in Vulgate. — 
Earliest Use of Book. — Passages of New Testament supposed to present Reminis- 
cences. — Opinions of the Pathers respecting the Work. — Jewish Estimate. — 
English Version, whence taken - Pages 1024 — 1033 



Chap. VIII.— The Book of Baruch. 

Alleged Origin, and Contents. — Divisions. — Bertholdt's Attempt to separate iii. 
1 — 8. from Chaps, i. and ii. — De Wette's Reply, conclusive. — Bertholdt's At- 
tempt to assign to iii. 9 — v. 9. a different Writer from the Author of i. 1 — ii. 35. 

— De Wette's Reply, insufficient. — The two Sections of Book, originally inde- 
pendent. — Reasons against the Baruch-Authorship. — Original Language. — 
Circumstances alleged in favour of a Hebrew Original of i. 1 — iii. 8 — iii. 9 — v. 9. 
originally written in Greek. — Havernick in favour of a Greek Original. — Hy- 
pothesis of Cappellus and Havernick respecting the Work in Connection with Book 
of Jeremiah. — Object of the first Writer. — A Palestinian Jew. — The second an 
Alexandrian. — Both belonged to Maccabean Period. — The translator of Jere- 
miah and of Baruch not identical, as Hitzig believes. — Another Explanation of 
the Similarities between them. — Movers's View. — Jewish Estimate of the Book. 

— Estimate of it by the Christian Eathers. — Holmes's and Parsons's Greek MSS. 
— Versions. — The two Latin, the Syriac, and the Arabic described. — First Epistle 
of Baruch printed in the two great Polyglotts. — Conjectures respecting the Au- 
thor. — Probably not a Translation - - - - - 1033 — 1038 



Chap. IX. — The Epistle of Jeremy 

Stands as sixth Chapter of Baruch. — Had no Connection at first with Baruch and 
the Lamentations. — Contents, whence taken. — Position in MSS. — Not written by 
Jeremiah. — Opinion of older Roman Catholics. — Originated in Egypt. — Sup- 
posed oldest Allusion to it. — Writer belonged to the Maccabean Period. — The 
old Latin, Syriac, and Arabic Versions ... - 1038, 1039 



Chap. X. — Prayer of Manasses. 

Account in 2 Chron. xxxiii. relative to Manasseh. — Character of the Composition. 
— Written by a Jew. ■ — Earliest Trace of its Existence. — Various Opinions re- 
specting Writer. — When he lived. — Jewish Legends respecting the Prayer of 
Manasseh. — The old Latin Version. — A Hebrew Version. — Prayer uncanoni- 
cal among all Parties. — Its Position in different MSS. and Books 1039 — 1041 



THE SECOND VOLUME. XXxi 

Chap. XI.— The First Book of Maccabees. 

The Name Maccabee. — Different Derivations. — To whom first applied, and how- 
extended. — Appellation Hasmoncean. — Period embraced in Book. — Division. — 
Greek Style and Diction. — A Translation from the Hebrew. — Internal Evidences. 
— Hengstenberg's Mistake. — The Hebrew Piece printed by Bartolocci. — Mistake 
of a Writer in the Cyclopedia of Biblical Literature. — The Original, probably 
Hebrew. — The Title given by Origen explained in different Ways. — The Greek 
Translator, not Theodotion. — Why the Writer was a Palestinian Jew. — Conjec- 
tures respecting him . — Time when he lived particularly investigated. — About 80 
b. c. — Character, Tone, Spirit, and Manner of tbe Book. — Compared with Ezra and 
Nehemiah. — Historical Value and Credibility. — Some Exaggerations and Errors. 
— Sources and Mode in which they were used. — Old Latin Version. — Various 
Eorms of its Text. — The old Syriac. — Early Notices of Book. — Grimm's Estimate. 
— Passages apparently opposed to him. — Not really so - Pages 1041 — 1046 



Chap. XII The Second Book of Maccabees. 

Summary of Contents. — Period embraced. — The two Letters at Commencement, not 
genuine. — Eeasons why they were prefixed by a later Person than the Epitomiser 
of Jason. — Contents of Jason's original Work. — How far parallel with 1 Macca- 
bees. — Character, Spirit, and Value. — Historical and chronological Mistakes. — ■ 
Inconsistent with 1 Maccabees. — Date of the Era of Seleucidas in it, incorrect. — 
Exaggerated Descriptions and Embellishments. — Jason and his Age. — Lived con- 
siderably after 160 b. c. — Epitomiser of Jason's Books. — Conjectures respecting 
him.— Eeasons for making him an Egyptian Jew, not a Palestinian. — Lived about 
100 b. c. — The two Letters, prefixed after Death of John Hyrcanus. — The Original, 
Greek. — The two Epistles originally composed in Hebrew or Aramcean. — The old 
Latin Version. — The Syriac. — The Arabic in the Paris Polyglott. — Supposed 
Eeference in Epistle to the Hebrews.— Early Eeception of Work - 1047 — 1051 



Chap. XIII The Third Book of Maccabees. 

Improperly entitled so. — Summary of Contents. — A Eable. — Origin of the Story. — 
Eichhorn's Opinion. — Story in Eufinus's Latin Translation of Josephus's second 
Book against Apion. — Connection between it and the present. — Object of the 
Writer. — An Egyptian Jew. — When he lived. — After the second Book of Macca- 
bees had appeared. — Allix's Idea. — Early Notices and Estimate of Work — Syriac 
Version in London Polyglott. — Mistake of a Writer in Cyclopaedia of Biblical 
Literature. — English and French Versions - - - - 1051 — 1053 



Chap. XIV. — The Fourth Book of Maccabees. 

Accounts of a fourth Book. — The real fourth Book in Cod. Alexandrinus and 
various Editions of LXX. — Not in the Cod. Vaticanus. — Printed among 
Josephus's Works and attributed to him. — Its Purport. — Not Josephus's. — Con- 
tradicts 2 Maccabees. — Blunders. — Style. — Writer and Age. — Fathers 
acquainted with it. — Cotton's English Translation - 1053, 1054 



Chap. XV. — The Fifth Book of Maccabees. 

Identical with the fourth Book spoken of by Sixtus Senensis. — History contained in 
% it. — Exists only in Arabic. — Not used by Josephus. — Peculiar Expressions. — 



Ol CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME. 

The Translation on which the Arabic is based appeared after Destruction of 
Temple by the Romans. — The Original, compiled in Greek from Hebrew Memoirs. 

— Expressions favouring the Idea of the Compiler being a Jew of the Dispersion. 

— Belonged either to the third or fourth Century of Christian Era. — Arabic Ver- 
sion made after the seventh Century. — Third, fourth, and fifth Books arranged in 
Order of Time ------ Pages 1055, 1056 

Concluding Observations. — Professor Stuart on Canon. — Wordsworth's Lectures. 
— Observations on the Treatment which the Apocrypha has received from various 
Writers - - - - - - - - 1056—1058 



Addenda to pages 187. 197. 423. 554, 555. - 1059, 1060 



ERRATA. 

Page 17. line 41. for " v. 8." read "v. 18." 
„ 22. „ 33, for "riW read "lyWiy' 
„ 31. „ 26. for " I 1 ?'!}® " read " ^£g> " 

„ 39. lines 25, 26. for "places, 2 Kings v. 18. ; Deut. vi. 1. ; Jer. li. 3. ; Ezek. xlviii. 
16. ; Ruth hi. 12." read "words in Ruth iii. 12.; 2 Sam. xiii. 32., xv. 21. ; Jer. 
xxxix. 12. ; 2 Kings v. 18. ; Jer. xxxviii. 16., li. 3. ; Ezek. xlviii. 16»" 



INTRODUCTION 

TO 

THE HOLY SCRIPTURES. 



Part I CRITICISM, 

CHAPTER I. 

PRELIMINARY. 

The criticism of the Old Testament will be treated of in this work 
in the proper and more restricted sense of the term. It will relate to 
text alone, apart from the interpretation of that text. Sometimes this 
has been called the loicer criticism, as distinguished from exegetical 
treatment which is termed the higher. Others have called it textual 
criticism, an appellation distinctive and appropriate. Biblical criticism, 
or criticism alone, is sufficient to characterise the process ; and inter- 
pretation should never have been included in the appellation. 

According to this definition, the object about which criticism is 
employed is the text of Scripture. It discusses all matters belonging 
to the form and history of that text, showing in what state it has been 
perpetuated, what changes it has undergone. Alterations which the 
text has suffered in the course of transmission from age to age are care- 
fully discovered and noted. We need scarcely say, that the text of 
no ancient book transcribed and handed down through successive 
centuries, could be kept perfectly free from change without a miracle. 
It is impossible to guard against mistakes. The original genuine 
text cannot be preserved against every kind of deterioration, while it 
passes through the hands of fallible men. Now criticism endeavours, 
in the first place, to find out the nature and amount of all changes 
which the text has undergone from its origin till the present time ; 
and having accomplished this, to remove them, and so restore the 
text to its original state. Here a wide field is opened up to the 
inquirer. He is carried back to remote ages, and thence downward 
through the stream of time to the present day. He judges of the 
words, sentences, paragraphs, and books as they lie before him, com- 
paring various copies and employing various instruments for rectifying 
the text, that is, for discovering the true one. He cannot, indeed, 
natter himself with the idea, that he can see every place in which 

VOL. II. B 



2 Biblical Criticism. 

some change lias been made in the letters or words, or the exact 
nature of the alteration itself. Neither can he pretend to be able in 
all instances to remove the alteration and restore the primitive form. 
But he may hope to approach the desired result. And he is the 
more encouraged in relation to this end when he remembers that the 
text has not suffered materially. It is generally admitted that it has 
not been extensively tampered with or corrupted. Certainly it has 
not been maliciously meddled with. Hence the task of criticism is 
easier than it would have been otherwise. 

Before proceeding to the proper criticism of the Old Testament 
text, it will be desirable, if not necessary, to examine the language 
or languages in which the books are written. These must be known 
by him who takes upon him the critical function. None can perform 
the task adequately or well, without an intimate acquaintance with 
the languages in which the Old Testament was composed. 



CHAP. II. 

LANGUAGE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 

All the books of the Old Testament are written in Hebrew, with 
the exception of some pieces in Daniel and Ezra, which are in the 
Chaldee language. These portions, forming an exception to the rest 
in respect to diction, are, Dan. ii. 4 — vii. 28. ; Ezra iv. 8 — vi. 18., 
vii. 12 — 26. A verse in Jeremiah may be added to them (x. 11.). 

The language was called Hebrew from the people that spoke it 
vernacularly in the time of their independence, the posterity of 
Abraham denominated Hebreios. Why they were so designated, it 
is not easy to ascertain. Critics at least are not agreed about the 
origin of the appellation. On comparing the usage of ^V, Cinnj?, 
D^-ny, we find that it must be regarded as the ethnographic appella 
tion, being usually employed to distinguish the race from other 
peoples. It was applied to them partly by foreigners, and partly by 
themselves in. their intercourse with others, or in contradistinction 
from them, as is manifest from the following passages, Gen. xxxix. 
14., xli. 12.; Exod. i. 16.; 1 Sam. iv. 6. 9., xiii. 19., xxix. 3.; and 
Gen. xl. 15.; Exod. ii. 7., iii. 18., &c. 

There are three ways in which the name Hebrew has been 
derived. 

1. Some take it from the verb "i?y, to pass over. According to 
this, the appellation was first given to Abraham by the Canaanites, 
because he had crossed the Euphrates. It is therefore equivalent to 
passer over, or to the Latin transitor. Such seems to have been the 
opinion of Origen and Jerome. 

2. Others derive it from "DP, a preposition denoting beyond. It 
would thus mean, one who dwells beyond the Euphrates, on the other 
side from Mesopotamia ; equivalent to the Latin transjluvialis. This 
is supposed to be favoured by the Septuagint rendering of the term 
where it first occurs in Gen. xiv. 13., applied to Abraham: viz., 



Language of the Old Testament. . 3 

6 irspa.T7]s, and Aquila's TTspa'Lrrjs. But the version 6 Trspanis appears 
to us to favour the derivation from the verb rather than the prepo- 
sition ; that of Aquila agrees better with the preposition. It is clear 
that Diodorus of Tarsus inclined to the latter l , as well as Chrysos- 
tom. 2 It is adopted by the majority of scholars in modern times, 
among others by Gesenius, Hengstenberg, and Rodiger. But it has 
not been usual to keep the two hypotheses distinct ; and therefore 
the names of such as have inclined to the one or the other, are 
usually given together. 

3. A third opinion makes it a patronymic from Eber, one of the 
descendants of Shem (Gen. x. 24., xi. 14. 16, 17.). We believe, 
with Ewald, Havernick, and Fiirst in recent times, that this view is 
best supported. Indeed it appears to us the only one sanctioned in 
the book of Genesis itself, as Gesenius himself admits, referring to 
Gen. x. 21.; Numb. xxiv. 24. 3 He and others think, of course, 
that the explanation of the Hebrew genealogists inserted in the Pen- 
tateuch is erroneous in this instance ; but we prefer to abide by it. 
It is useless to adduce against it that Eber is nowhere mentioned as 
the progenitor of the Israelites, for there may have been connected 
with him or his day, what sufficed to make him stand out pro- 
minently as one worthy to give his name to those descended from 
him. He was father of Peleg, in whose days the earth was di- 
vided, as recorded in Gen. x. 25. We rely on Gen. x. 21., where 
^V *3«? occurs as a valid proof that ^V, the patronymic for Hebrew, 
was taken from Eber. The people were thus called Hebrews as sons 
of Eber, an appellation by which they were known among foreigners. 
But they themselves preferred another name, Israel, or sons of Israel, 
Israelites, a more honourable title, because involving a reference to 
illustrious descent. The latter was in fact the theocratic, as the 
former was the ethnographic name. Israel continued to be appro- 
priated by them as a national name of honour, till, after Solomon's 
death, ten tribes revolted from the kingly house of David, and 
assumed the name Israel to themselves as distinct from the kingdom 
ofJudah. The prophets, however, often applied it to all the people; 
and so it continued to be employed till the name Jews became 
general. But the old appellation Hebrews was again revived not 
long before the Christian era. 

The people being thus called Hebreics, the name Hebrew language 
came very naturally to be applied to their mother tongue. But in the 
Old Testament it is never called the Hebrew language. It is termed 
poetically the language of Canaan (Isa. xix. 18.), after the country 
in which it was spoken. It is also called the Jetcs* language (2 Kings 
xviii. 26.; Isa. xxxvi. 11. 13.; Nek. xiii. 24.), after the king- 
dom of Judah ; when the name Jeiv was extended to the whole 
people, subsequently to the deportation of the ten tribes. The name 
Hebrew is first applied to the language in the prologue of Jesus 
Sirach, s^palari In like manner, Josephus uses the expression 

1 Comp. Flaminius Nobil. ad loc. in Walton's Polyglott. vol. vi. 

2 Homil. xxxv. in Genes. 

3 Gest'hicluc der Hebr. Sprache und Schrift, p. 1 1. 

B 2 



4 Biblical Criticism. 

ryXwTTa Twv e/3paio)v. But in the New Testament kj3pal(rri (John 
v. 2., xix. 13. 17. 20.) and efipals BioXskto? (Acts xxi. 40., 
xxii. 2., xxvi. 14.) denote the language at that time vernacular in 
Palestine, in distinction from the Greek, viz., the Aramcean. In the 
Targums and among the Rabbins Hebrew is called N&H-lpl \f?, the 
holy tongue, in contrast with the Chaldee or people's language, which 
was then designated the profane tongue. 

The Hebrew dialect is only one branch of a large trunk-language 
in "Western Asia, which was native not only in Canaan, including 
Phenicia and Palestine, but also in Aram, i. e. Syria, Mesopotamia, 
and Babylonia, as well as in Arabia. Nor was it indigenous in these 
only, wide as the space occupied by them is, but likewise in the 
countries from the Mediterranean Sea to the Tigris, and from the 
Armenian mountains to the south coast of Arabia. From this ex- 
tended surface it also went forth and covered at an early period 
Ethiopia southward of Arabia, beside many islands and shores of the 
Mediterranean, especially the entire Carthaginian coast, through the 
instrumentality of Phenician colonies. This great trunk-language 
and the various peoples using it, are now usually called Shemitic, 
Shemites, a name which has supplanted the old one, Oriental, customary 
among the fathers and older theologians. It is true that Shemitic is 
not very exact ; for the Elamites and Assyrians, who were descended 
from Shem, did not speak it; whereas, on the other hand, Canaan 
and Cush who did, were sprung from Ham. Hence Hupfeld pro- 
poses fore- Asiatic or hither- Asiatic} 

The other great family of languages which bordered the Shemitic 
on the east and north, has been called Lido- Germanic, Japhetic, Arian, 
to each of which Ewald has objected, proposing another not likely to 
be adopted, viz., Mediterranean or inland. 11 Jap>hetic is perhaps the 
best. The distinguishing character of the Shemitic family may be 
traced both in grammatical structure and lexically. The grammatical 
character consists mainly in the following peculiarities : — 

1. In the consonant-system there is a greater variety of gutturals 
and of other primitive sounds which are partly incapable of being 
imitated, than in any other ; whereas the vowel-system evolves itself 
from the same three primary sounds a, i, u, as the Japhetic family 
does. 

2. In the written state there is a striking disproportion between 
the vowel-representation and the development of the language. The 
former fell behind the latter. The entire vowel-system, as outwardly 
noted, is expressed by special signs placed under the letters which 
were only used in the sacred writings, not in common life ; whereas 
other languages invented distinct letters for vowels added subse- 
quently to their development. 

3. The roots uniformly consist of three letters or two syllables 
evolved out of the primitive monosyllable by the addition of a third 
letter which can be easily discovered in most cases. In the later 
dialects, the tendency was to go on to four letters, and even to five. 

1 Ausfiihrlichc Ilebraische Grammatik, p. 2. 

2 Ansfuhrliches Lehrbuch dcr Hebraischcn Sprachc, p. 17. 



Language of the Old Testament. 5 

This same progress towards more than three letters also appears in 
the Japhetic family, but with the difference that, in the Shemitic, 
the roots of one syllable remain along with and beside their enlarge- 
ment, while in the Japhetic they have entirely disappeared. 

4. Scarcely a compound word appears in verbs or nouns, except 
proper names. 

5. In the flexion of verbs, there is a poverty in tense-formation 
which is limited to two forms. On the other hand there is greater 
richness in verbals, or forms intended to express the modifications of 
the simple verbal idea. 

6. In the flexion of nouns, there are important deficiencies. («) 
Two genders only, masculine and feminine, the neuter being sup- 
plied by the feminine, (b) There are no proper forms for cases; 
but either two words are syntactically put together for the genitive, 
or prepositions for the other cases, (c) In the pronoun, all oblique 
cases are indicated by appended forms. ((/) There are no proper 
forms for the comparative and superlative, except in the Arabic. 

7. In the syntax there is a deficiency and crudeness in the use of 
particles, and consequently in the structure of periods, which may 
be attributed not so much to the essence of the language itself as 
to the temperament of the people, which was more poetical than 
philosophical. 1 

Considerable difference is also observable between the Shemitic 
and Japhetic families in a lexical point of view, though there is ap- 
parently more in common between them here than there is gramma- 
tically. Not a few Shemitic stems and roots coincide in sound with 
the Japhetic. But here all that is similar may be much reduced in 
a variety of ways. 

The predominant principle of the Shemitic is its peculiar law of 
formation. There the consonants constitute the solid body ; the 
vowels, the animating soul, of words. The fundamental idea lies 
almost exclusively in the consonants, not, as in Indo-Germanic, in 
the junction of one or more consonants with a radical vowel. The 
former develops itself phonetically; the latter, logically. The former 
enlarges and enriches itself by increase of sounds, either in finer 
distinctions of the consonant sounds, or by doubling the radical con- 
sonants, or by annexing new consonants to the short monosyllabic 
stem, i. e. by increasing the biliteral roots so as to become triliteral 
or quadriliteral. The latter enlarges and develops itself by the 
logical law of composition. Hoots consisting of primitive particles, 
or verbs in themselves independent, are joined together so as to 
make a new whole, and become icord-stems. 

This phonetic principle regulates so entirely the formation of. 
words from stems, that verbs and nouns, with their numerous modi- 
fications, are chiefly made by means of vowel changes within the 
firm sounds or roots. When more than this is necessary, or when 
something is required which internal vocalisation in the root itself 
is insufficient to express, sounds or syllables are attached to the 
beginning or end called prefixes oi 'suffixes. In the Indo-Germanio 

1 See Hnpfeld's Ausfiihrliche Grammatik, p. 3. ct scqq. 
Ii 3 . 



6 Biblical Criticism. 

family, words are formed almost exclusively by suffixes, and the 
radical vowel can only change within its own relative sounds accord- 
ing to the rules of euphony. 

The Shemitic trunk-language is divided into three leading branches. 

1. The Aramcean, the primitive dialect, preserved to us only in 
two late offshoots, an Eastern one, viz. the Babylonian or Chaldee ; 
and a Western, i. e. the Syriac. The Zabian dialect, the Samaritan, 
mixed however with Hebrew, and the Palmyrene, belong to the 
Aramaean; but they are corrupted. 

2. The Canaanitish, to which the Hebrew language of the Old 
Testament, the Phenician and the Punic belong ; whence also has 
descended the later Hebrew or Talmudic and Rabbinic dialect, 
mixed however with Aramaean. 

3. The Arabic, of which the Ethiopic is a branch ; and the lan- 
guage of the inscriptions at Sinai. 

The first, or Aramaean, having been the language spoken in the 
mother-country of the human race, must be regarded as the oldest. 
It prevailed in the north and north-east, i. e. Mesopotamia, 
Babylon, and Syria. In its original form it exists no longer, but is 
known merely from memorials that originated after the decay of the 
Hebrew. But even from the late monuments of it extant, some 
have inferred that it is older than all Semitic dialects. Rough and 
flat in its consonants, poor and clumsy in its vowels, it is the least 
developed. 

Of all the Shemitic family, the Hebrew language possesses 
the oldest literature ; and because, in its very oldest memorials, 
it appears in a fully developed and cultivated state, its primitive 
form is removed from the light of history. The greater number of 
its roots had already accommodated themselves to the law of three 
letters, and the forms were so fixed as to suffer few alterations after- 
wards. In consequence of the much higher antiquity of Hebrew 
literature, it might be inferred that its grammatical relation to the 
other Shemitic dialects is more ancient in the same proportion. And 
some have actually drawn this conclusion, supposing that the lan- 
guage bears the stamp of a higher antiquity upon it, as indicated by 
the simplicity and purity of its forms. But this position is scarcely 
tenable. It is true that Hebrew has the impress of a very high 
antiquity in many respects. The antique and forcible simplicity 
of its poetry ; the character of its lexical and grammatical formations, 
where significations and adaptations which are already established 
in the two cognate branches of the Shemitic stock may be seen in 
their rudiments ; the number of pluriliterals, much smaller than in 
the other dialects ; the simplicity and lucidness of many structural 
and flexion-forms ; the stronger flexion-letters D and n, not yet po- 
lished off into the weaker ones ) and k : the manifest purity of its 
consonant system ; the uniform accentuation of the final syllable, if 
such can be established as an ancient law ; these features look as 
though they would sustain the opinion of the high antiquity of the 
Hebrew language in comparison with the other Shemitic branches. 
But there are qualifying circumstances that lessen their force. 



Language of the Old Testament. 7 

Several of the peculiarities in question are shared by the Hebrew 
with the rest, and in some the latter even surpass it, as is the case 
in verbal-flexion, which is developed in the Arabic, and still more 
in the Ethiopic language, with greater purity. Besides, the Hebrew 
vocalism is by no means so simple as that of the Arabic ; like that of 
the Aramasan, it is motley and degenerate. Even in the conso- 
nantism of the language, in other respects so purely maintained, the 
prevalence of the hissing sound, where the others have always blunt 
lingual sounds, brings the character of originality into suspicion ; so 
that higher antiquity is on the side of the Arabic. 1 Hence the 
assertion of Keil 2 , that the Hebrew has lost its ancient character 
only in individual formations cannot be sustained, any more than 
his view that it bears, for the most part, internal marks of a higher 
antiquity than its Shemitic companions. 

In examining its grammatical relation, if we look to richness and 
development of forms, the Arabic language is decidedly superior. 
Its consonant-system, with the outward representation of it ; its word- 
building and flexion, but especially its syntax and stock of words, 
place Arabic immeasurably above the rest. In these and other 
respects, the Aramaean stands at the other extreme, being the poorest 
and the least developed ; while the Hebrew occupies an intermediate 
position between the two, just as it does geographically. 

The state of the Hebrew language prior to its earliest historical 
period has excited the curiosity of many, without leading to any im- 
portant results. Here doctrinal prepossessions have unhappily affected 
inquiries. There is no doubt that when Abraham came into Canaan 
he found the language prevailing among the various tribes living 
there to be very like his own. In other words, Hebrew, the language 
of his posterity, was substantially identical with the Canaanitish, 
Phenician, and Punic. This is deducible from the following pheno- 
mena. 

1. Proper names relating to the Canaanites in the Bible, as well as 
those pertaining to the Phenicians and ancient Carthaginians in the 
classical writers, are similar. 

2. The remains of the Phenician and Punic languages preserved 
partly in Phenician monuments and partly in the classics, are in 
affinity to the Hebrew. 

3. There is no hint of diversity of language in all the Bible ac- 
counts of the intercourse between the Israelites and Canaanites. 3 
These considerations must not be pressed to the extent of proving 
the sameness of the Canaanitish, Punic, and Hebrew ; they are 
solely available for the purpose of showing that the three are the 
same in substance, whatever peculiarities of a dialectical kind exist be- 
tween them. Biblical proper names may have been somewhat He- 
braised in form when adopted by the Hebrews, just as Egyptian and 
Persian words were ; and the remains of the Phenician, while exhi- 
biting great similarity to the Hebrew, may also have some affinities 

1 Hupfeld, p. 5. et seqq. 

2 Lehrlmch tier Historisch-Kritischen Einleittmg. p. 35. 

s Gesenius's Geschichte der Hcb. S. u.s.v/.. p. 16. et seqq. 
d 4 



8 Biblical Criticism. 

to the Aramaean, as indeed they appear to have. Still the Phe- 
nician has a greater affinity to the Hebrew than any other Shemitie 
language, though we admit that in some respects it is distinguished 
from it. 

A point has been discussed among various critics, whether Abra- 
ham brought with him into Canaan the very Hebrew language which 
appears in the earliest books of the Old Testament ; or whether he 
adopted from the tribes living in that country their common tongue, 
which was afterwards developed by his successors under the peculiar 
influences they were subject to, so as to assume the condition it 
appears in, in the biblical books. We believe the latter view to be 
the correct one. The Canaanites occupied their territory before 
Abraham came into it ; and we infer from Gen. xxxi. 47. that the 
relatives of Abraham who remained behind him in Mesopotamia, 
whence he had emigrated, spoke Aramsean. Hence this must have 
been the mother-tongue of Abraham himself. Besides, the language 
has no other word for west than 0} sea, showing that it was not carried 
with him by Abraham into Canaan, but proceeded from the Canaanites 
living to the east of the Mediterranean. 1 These tribes must have 
left the Aramaean mother-land in times considerably earlier than the 
progenitor of the Israelites ; and the Canaanitish, in which the 
Hebrew is included, originated with them in its distinctive character 
as a branch of the great Shemitie family. 

The considerations now adduced will help us to answer another 
question somewhat allied to the preceding one, but which it is 
scarcely necessary at the present day to do more than allude to. 
Indeed the very mention of it may seem superfluous. Was Hebrew 
the primitive language of mankind? In recent times, this question 
has been answered in the affirmative by Havernick 2 , Scholz 3 , and 
Baumgarten 4 , though it ought in fairness to be stated that the former 
has introduced certain modifications into the view to make it plausible. 
It is wholly vain to attempt proving the identity of Hebrew with 
the primeval language of mankind by the biblical names in the 
early part of Genesis, which are formed according to Hebrew etymo- 
logies and so essentially connected with their origin ; or by the 
vestiges of Hebrew words alleged to exist in all other languages. 

The latest researches into the Shemitie dialects lead back to a 
common Shemitie trunk-language, whose roots were for the most 
part biliteral or monosyllabic. In like manner the basis of all the 
Indo-Germanic dialects is a common trunk-language with mono- 
syllabic roots. By this feature of the two, the Shemitie and Indo- 
Germanic, the way is prepared for ascertaining and establishing a 
radical affinity between them. As far as we can judge from the 

1 Eohinson affirms that this argument is fallacious, because for the same reason it 
might be shown that the Arabic was original in Egypt, the Egyptians using El-Bahr 
(the Mediterranean Sea) for the north. But the inference is invalid, because there are 
other words in Arabic for north besides El-Bahr ; whereas the Hebrew has no other term 
for west save the one in question. See Bib. Researches in Palestine, vol. i. p. 542. 

2 Einleitungr vol. i. 1,,-p. 145. et seqq. 

3 Einleit. vol. i, § 9. 

* Theologischer Commentar zum Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 155. 



Language of the Old Testament. 9 

historical languages which have proceeded from the two stocks, there 
is little doubt that there was so great a relationship between them as 
to justify the hypothesis of their original unity. In this unity there 
is a sure index of the identity of alf languages at the beginning. 
Even the Egyptian has been shown by Lepsius, Meyer, Bunsen, and 
Benfey, to bear a radical affinity both to the Indo-Germanic and 
Shemitic, being a more ancient formation than either of them, per- 
haps the common germ of both ; or the most ancient representative 
of the one primitive tongue. It is primitive Hamism. l 

Instead of asking, therefore, whether* Hebrew was the primitive 
language, we should rather inquire in the first instance, which of the 
dialects belonging to the primitive Shemitic trunk-language has 
adhered longest and truest to its original type, or retained most of 
its antique simplicity ? A question this, easily asked, but difficult to 
answer. Here we are inclined to think that the Hebrew must give 
way to the Aramaean and Arabic. Both Ewald and Bodiger give 
the priority to the Arabic. But we prefer with Fiirst to assign it 
to the Aramaean. The latter appears to us as the more original form 
of Shemitism. It is true that its structure has suffered consider- 
ably ; but Bodiger probably goes too far in asserting that its 
simplicity is occasioned merely by derangement of structure and 
curtailment of forms. 2 In every case the development of the struc- 
ture of the language must be carefully separated from the develop- - 
ment of its literature, since both depend on causes and influences 
distinct from one another. 

Although Hebrew is by no means so rich, full, and developed in 
its forms as the Arabic, it can hardly be considered in itself as a 
poor language. In the sphere of religious ideas, and in things 
generally affecting the life and spirit of the people, it showed an 
expansive capacity of expression. ^Yords symbolising foreign things 
it was obliged to borrow from foreign languages, such as Egyptian, 
Persian, and Greek. It would be a mistake to suppose that the 
extant remains of old Hebrew literature have preserved the entire 
treasures of the ancient language. The latter must have been richer 
than they appear in the canonical literature of the Old Testament, 
which is but a part of the- Hebrew national literature. 

It is likely that there were dialects in the ancient Hebrew, though 
there are very few traces of them, because the Old Testament 
writers almost all belonged to a very limited locality. The Aramaean 
may have exerted an influence in the north on the popular language, 
as the prefixed & in the book of Judges serves to show. Traces of 
northern dialect are contained in the song of Deborah (Judg. v.). 
In Xehemiah (xiii. 23, 24.) the dialect of Ashdod is censured as 
Philistian ; and the Ephraimites pronounced V like '& or D (Judg. 
xii. 6.). 3 In addition to the fixed character of the East, there is a 
peculiarity of structure in the Hebrew language, with the other 
Shemitic dialects, which prevented it from being subject, in the lapse 

1 See Bunsen's able Essay on Ethnology, in the Eeport of the British Association for 
1847, p. 254. et seqq. 

- In Gesenius's Hebraische Grammatik, p. 7., 17th edition. 
3 Ewald's Lehrbueh, p. 20. 



10 Biblica* Criticism. 

of time, to such striking changes as the Indo- Germanic family is 
liable to. Besides, the circumstances of the Hebrew nation were 
such as could not materially affect a language. The Mosaic institu- 
tions tended to shut them out from intercourse with other peoples ; 
the twelve tribes lived together in civil and ecclesiastical unity under a 
peculiar constitution which resisted the current of popular life as it 
moves along with hurried pace overstepping the barriers of civili- 
sation ; they were never subjected for a long time together to the 
yoke of nations speaking a foreign tongue, and lived almost secluded 
from the rest of the world. Hence the people did not make much 
advancement in civilisation f and their language was little developed 
at the same time. Yet a certain progress in it may be discovered, 
even from the remains extant in the Old Testament. It has been 
thought by Hengstenberg ' and Havernick 2 , whom Keil follows as 
usual, that three periods in the history of the language may be 
traced clearly enough. These are the Mosaic age, that of David 
and Solomon, and that of the exile. This division rests on some obser- 
vations made by Ewald, in which his acuteness and microscopic 
power of discovering distinctions alike appear. But the lines between 
the three specified periods are somewhat shadowy and indistinct. 
And not only are they obscure and inexact, but they also involve 
certain views as to the age of books which it is difficult to sustain. 
On this account we prefer to abide by the old and well-known divi- 
sion into the golden and silver ages of the language, a division none 
the worse in our eyes because Gesenius gave currency to it. Even 
here the lines cannot be sharply drawn. The former reaches to the 
Babylonian exile, when the latter commences. To the golden age 
belong the following historical books, viz., the Pentateuch, Joshua, 
Judges, Samuel, Kings, Ruth ; the prophets Joel, Amos, Hosea, 
Micah, Isaiah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Obadiah ; the last 
part of Zechariah (ix. — xiv.) ; among the poetical writings, the earlier 
Psalms, Proverbs, Canticles, Job. During this period, amid all the 
individualities of different writers and the differences of literary 
excellence, no great diversities of style are apparent. But the lan- 
guage of the poetical books and fragments is distinguishable from 
the prose of the historical ones, by an external rythm consisting in a 
parallelism of members, not in an adjusted measurement of syllables. 
It is also observable in a peculiar usus loquendi, employing certain 
words, significations of words, forms, and constructions, not current 
in the ordinary idiom, but yet analogous to the usage in other 
dialects, especially the Aramaean. The most natural explanation of 
what has just been stated, lies in our assuming that these poetical 
peculiarities are part of the original Aramaean tongue, and therefore 
archaisms, to which the diction of poets in general leans. The older 
language of poetry is characterised by the usual qualities of energy, 
vividness, and boldness. But it is also marked by a certain hardness, 
clumsiness, and obscurity of expression which commonly characterise 
first attempts in literature. The language of the prophets during 

1 In Tholuck's Litterarischer Anzciger, No. 44. 

2 Einleil. i. 1. p. 177, et seqq. 



Language of the Old Testament. ] 1 

its palmy period is closely allied to the poetical ; the only exception 
being, that the rytmn is freer and less regular and the periods longer 
than in the writings of such as are properly called poets. In the 
later prophets, the diction is flattened down more and more into 
prose, in proportion as the animating spirit degenerates. 

About the time of the Babylonish exile, a silver age of the Hebrew 
language and literature appears. This may be said to extend from 
the commencement of that deportation till the close of the canon. 
The theocratic spirit of the nation now sank, and with it native power 
of conception, purity of taste, and originality of ideas. As the 
political prosperity and independence of the people fell away, we 
might have expected, a priori,^ corresponding degeneracy in literature. 
This is observable in two writers who stand on the borders of the 
golden age in point of language, Jeremiah and Ezekiel ; still more in 
the post-exile prophets, Haggai, Zechariah (i. — viii.), Malachi, 
Daniel, and the later Psalm-writers. In the latter, the diction sinks 
down to the verge of prose ; or it is marked by an imitation of older 
poetical phrases. In like manner, history, ceasing to be pervaded by 
the old spirit of the nation, became less worthy of the name, consisting 
of extracts from genealogies and memoirs : annalist compilations, 
mechanically put together, as Ezra, Nehemiah, Chronicles. Daniel, 
Esther, and Jonah, are not free from analogous features. The decay 
of the language is chiefly exhibited in the Aramaean colouring affecting 
its orthography, forms, and usus loquendi The Hebrews had come 
into contact with the Chaldeans in Babylon ; and therefore the 
dialect of the latter, allied as it was to the Hebrew, exerted an 
important and increasing influence on that of the former. Such 
Aramaean element is particularly seen in Chronicles, Esther, Daniel, 
Jonah, Ecclesiastes, and various Psalms. In Ezra and Daniel, 
portions wholly Chaldee are found. Yet there are exceptions in the 
compositions of this period to the general inferiority of its literary 
products. Notwithstanding the degeneracy of the language, there 
are works in which the old living spirit of poetry appears, causing 
them to be ranked in merit with the best parts of the Old Testament, 
such as Ecclesiastes, and several later Psalms, particularly exxxix. 
In others, the pure style of the classical age is preserved, as in the 
Psalms of Korah. 1 

It is not easy to mark the precise time at which Hebrew ceased to 
be the living language of the Jews. Some date its extinction at the 
captivity, an opinion revived and supported with great ability in 
modern days by Hengstenberg and Havernick. 

Another view is, that though the people in Babylon became 
accustomed to the Aramaean dialect, and laid aside the use of their 
mother-tongue, thev retained the latter partially for some time after. 
The more educated class still employed their ancient language in 
speech and writing. Thus both the Chaldee and Hebrew continued 
among the people for a considerable period, till the former entirely 
supplanted the latter in the second century before Christ. 

1 Gesenius's Hebraische Grammatik, eel. Eodigcr, 17th edition, p. 9. et seqq. 



12 Biblical Criticism. 

These views are not very different, if they are stated with certain 
modifications which some of their respective advocates would hardly 
object to. Much depends on the discrimination made in regard to 
classes of the people. The adherents of the old view cannot deny 
that the educated still understood their former speech after the return 
to Palestine ; and it was certainly used in books written after 
the exile. In our opinion they must have spoken it too, and not only 
they, but others also. It was not wholly supplanted among the body 
of the people during the sojourn in Babylon. The duration of that 
sojourn and the habits of the exiles are adverse to any other 
supposition. It was still partially used in various districts after the 
exile, by the side of the adopted dialect ; longest without doubt by 
the more opulent and cultivated. It became extinct gradually some- 
where in the second century before Christ. It will be seen, therefore, 
that we adopt the latter view as the more correct one, rejecting that 
of Hengstenberg. Gesenius, Hupfeld, and Rodiger hold the same 
opinion. Two passages have been adduced on both sides, according 
as they are interpreted, viz., Nehemiah viii. 8., xiii. 24. In the 
former, it is related that the priests and Levites " read in the book of 
God ®~p'Q, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the 
reading." Gesenius explains the term SJHbp distinctly, faithfully, 
accurately, so that every word could be apprehended by the hearers. 1 
But Hengstenberg, following the Talmudists and Hebrew inter- 
preters, understands the term, adding an explanation, i.e. giving at 
the same time the interpretation of what was read in the Chalclee 
language. 2 This latter is said to be confirmed by Ezra iv. 18. But 
the meaning thus developed seems to be untenable and unauthorised. 
It is favoured neither by the context, nor by Ezra iv., 18. Besides, 
Nehemiah xiii. 24. plainly shows that Hebrew was still spoken in 
Nehemiah's day. Certain Jews, as there related, had children who 
spake half in the speech of Ashdod, and could not speak in the Jews' 
language IVTliT. It is vain for Hengstenberg to argue that nn-in^ means 
the language which the Jews then spoke, i.e. the Aramaean as opposed 
to that of the Philistines, Ammonites, &c. The assumption is quite 
arbitrary. 

From the preceding observations, it will be seen that we disagree 
with such as maintain the extinction of the Hebrew as a living 
tongue at the exile. It continued to be partially spoken and used in 
writing some time after, especially among the more cultivated ; the 
Aramaean being generally, but not exclusively, spoken by the great 
mass of the people. 

After Hebrew became a dead language, it still continued, as 
the dialect of the sacred books, to be read and explained in the 
synagogues; and was a subject of learned study among the Rabbins. 
It was carefully preserved and handed down in the schools of 
learning. The Rabbins have great merit in thus perpetuating a 
knowledge of the ancient language along with the holy writings. 
And not only so, but they also attended critically to the text, 

1 Geschichte der Heb. Sprache, p. 45., and Thesaurus, s. v. tJHS. 

2 Eeitrage zur Einleitiing ins Alte Testament, p. 299. et seqq. 



Language of the Old Testament. 1 3 

furnishing it, probably after the sixth century, with a number of 
new orthographical marks to assist in a more accurate pronun- 
ciation of it — a vowel-system, involving the finest distinctions 
of sounds — and with an accentuation and interpunction of like 
minuteness. The collection of critical observations made by these 
Jewish scholars has received the name Mas or ah ; and they them- 
selves after it are styled Masoretes. Yet whatever merit may belong 
to the Masoretes for labours of this nature, there is little doubt that 
such complex and outward orthographical signs overburden the forms 
of words, and stifle the living spirit of free inquiry. A true insight 
into the genius of the language is impeded by them. 

Even after the destruction of the Jewish state, Jewish zeal on 
behalf of their old language was not extinguished. The sacred books 
prevented that misfortune. They were ardently studied ; and by the 
aid of tradition, which always retained some knowledge of the old 
classical tongue, as well as a strong love for the perusal of the 
national literature, an aftershoot of the ancient Hebrew arose in the 
new Hebreio dialect^ This became the language of the learned, or of 
the Rabbins, beside the Aramaean or people's dialect, and was used in 
many Rabbinical works of a scientific nature, occupying an inter- 
mediate place between the old sacred tongue and the common 
Aramaean. This new Hebrew or Rabbinical dialect appears first in 
the most ancient part of the Talmud, the Mishna, a collection of 
ecclesiastical statutes intended to explain and supplement the written 
law of Moses ; and which, after being orally preserved and handed 
down through various generations, was reduced to writing, in the first 
half of the third century after Christ, by R. Judah the holy, presi- 
dent of the Jewish academy at Tiberias. The language of the Mishna 
approximates to the latest biblical Hebrew, inclining of course 
still more to the Aramaean ; and all Jewish writings belonging to 
the first six centuries of the Christian era partake more or less of the 
same character, their diction being impregnated with an Aramaean 
colouring, and the forms of words so far corrupted by means of it. 
The dialect of the younger parts of the Talmud, or the Gemara, 
collected and written down between the fourth and sixth centuries, is 
much more degenerate than that of the Mishna, especially in the 
portions collected at Babylon, or the Babylonian Gemara, which 
were of later origin than those committed to writing at Jerusalem, 
i.e. the Jerusalem Gemara. Here the language sinks down almost 
entirely into Aramaean. 1 

In the eleventh century, a second revival of learning took place 
among the Jews. Stimulated by the example of the Arabians, a 
number of Jews applied themselves to the language of their own 
books, which they tried to purify and bring into greater con- 
formity to the biblical Hebraism. The direction their efforts took 
was a scientific, not a popular, one. Hence arose the so-called 
Rabbinical dialect as distinguished from the Talmudic. In some 
respects the Rabbinical is a successful approximation to its model, 
excelling the Talmudic in purity. It appears to most advantage 
1 Hupfeld, Hebraische Grammatik, pp. 13, 14. 



14 Biblical Criticism. 

in the commentaries on the Old Testament, known by the appella- 
tion D^-ITS. But on the whole it bears the character of a degenerate, 
corrupt dialect strongly imbued with Aramasan, though less so than 
the Talmudic. Both have a considerable number of new words and 
significations of words, from being applied to subjects foreign to the 
Old Testament. Terms expressive of objects and relations in the 
arts and sciences distinguish it most, adding to its compass, as 
compared with the biblical language. It is also marked by a more 
abundant stock of particles. Foreign terms have in like manner 
been incorporated with it, — Latin, Greek, and Persian. 1 



CHAP. III. 

THE HEBREW CHARACTERS, 



The most ancient mode of writing was by pictures, which repre- 
sented the object to the eye and recalled the name for it. But we 
have now to do with the Hebrew alphabet, which is merely an 
ancient branch of the Shemitic. Yet there is reason to believe that 
the hieroglyphical, so long preferred in Egypt, suggested the principle 
or germ of the earliest alphabetical writing to a people external to 
Egypt itself. The Shemitic alphabet must have been invented by a 
Shemitic people, since it is perfectly adapted to the peculiarities of 
the Shemitic trunk-language. It is needless to inquire minutely into 
the question, What people invented alphabetical writing? To 
Egypt must be assigned phonetic hieroglyjihics, the oldest of all 
methods of writing ; and then proper alphabetical writing belongs 
either to the Phenicians or the Babylonians. Scholars are not agreed 
in assigning the honour of the discovery to one or the other. In 
favour of the Babylonians are Kopp, Hoffmann, Hupfeld ; but 
Gesenius inclines to the Phenicians. One thing is tolerably certain, 
viz. that the people who first used this writing had some connexion 
with Egypt. The commerce of the Phenicians would readily lead them 
to Egypt ; but the Aramceans also may have been brought into contact 
with the same country through a cause or causes unknown to us. 

From the time we have any certain traces of the Shemitic writing, 
it was divided into three branches. In the farthest south, embracing 
southern Arabia and Africa, were developed the Himyaritic and 
Ethiopic, both anciently exhibiting a degree of elegance. The 
western branch is seen in the Phenician character, which was the 
character of the Hebrew for a length of time, and has been preserved 
among the Samaritans to the present day. The eastern branch was 
used in Babylonia and other countries on the Euphrates and Tigris. 

The genuine palaeographical monuments of the Phenicians have 
preserved to us the form of that alphabet to which we must look for 
the original Hebrew character. The letters found on Phenician 
stones and coins, are generally marked by strong strokes downward, 

1 Hupfeld, Hebraische Grammatik, pp. 15, 16. 



The Hebrew Characters. 15 

without curvatures to join them to other letters, and closed heads 
either round or pointed. The former peculiarity corresponds with 
the character of a rude age inscribing letters on a hard material. It 
was this mode of writing, as well as the language itself, which the 
Hebrews adopted from the Canaanites among whom they dwelt, and 
which was current throughout the whole period during which 
Hebrew was a living tongue. A twofold memorial of its use has 
been preserved, besides a certain tradition respecting it found in the 
Talmud, and even before in Origen and Jerome : — (a) The character 
on the Maccabean coins which were struck under the princes of that 
distinguished family, dating from B.C. 143, a character closely allied 
to the Phenician ; (b) The Samaritan writing, in which the Samaritan 
Pentateuch exists, a character remaining unaltered down to the 
present time, and differing from the Phenician, especially as seen on 
the Maccabean coins, only by several freer and more artificial traits, 
as might have been expected from the difference of material on which 
it was impressed. Thus the Hebrew chai-acters, till about the time 
of Christ, the Phenician, and the Samaritan, were substantially 
identical. They are stiff and heavy, angular, uneven, without pro- 
portion or beauty ; and underwent comparatively little alteration in 
the progress of many centuries. ] 

In the meantime among the Aramaeans, at least those in the west, 
this old Shemitic character was gradually altered. It was by degrees 
brought near the form of a cursive character in two Avays, either by 
opening the heads before closed and dividing them into two pro- 
jecting points or ears ; or by breaking the stiff strokes into horizon- 
tally inclined ones, which would serve for union in cursive writing, 
but in stone-writing would form for the most part a sort of basis. 
This character is found on Aramaean monuments in a twofold form, 
an older and simpler one appearing on the Carpentras stone, still 
approximating to the ancient writing from which it deviates, chiefly 
by opening the heads of letters ; and a younger one appearing in 
inscriptions on the ruins of Palmyra, where the primitive alphabet 
has been wholly forsaken, both in the open heads, of which nothing 
but a point remains in many letters, and in horizontal union-strokes 
as well as in twisted features. Thus the eastern Aramaean branch 
of Shemitic writing was early distinguished by being somewhat round, 
ductile, and regular. 2 

But the old Phenician character, that branch of Shemitic writing 
adopted by the Jews, did not remain stationary and unchanged 
among that people. In their hands it passed through a course of 
development not unlike the Aramaean branch. It did not indeed 
change so much nor become round and cursive like the latter, yet it 
did not resist all modification. The Maccabean coin-writing evinces 
a tendency towards alteration, especially in breaking the upright 
strokes of some letters. It is very probable that the influence of the 
later Aramaean had contributed to this, since the language of the 
Jews itself had felt the powerful influence so as to give way to it 
entirely. Ai'amaean influence modified and suppressed the ancient 
' Hnpfeld, Graramatik, pp. 33, 34. 2 Ibid. p. 34. 



16 Biblical Criticism. 

character. Hence arose our present Hebrew character. It is to be 
regretted that the character found on the Palmyrene inscriptions 
belongs to monuments of no higher date than the first Christian cen- 
tury. And yet this character stands in a relation to the square 
Hebrew which cannot be denied. It has been used both by Kopp 
and Hupfeld as the intermediate link between the ancient Hebrew 
character employed before the exile and the modern or square one. 
In consequence of the intermediate nature of the Palmyrene, Kopp 
brings down the time when the present Hebrew character began to 
the fourth century. 1 But this is too late, as has been proved by 
Hupfeld 2 , who places it in the first or second century after 
Christ. If we compare our square character with the Palmyrene, 
it may be said to proceed an important step farther, smoothing off 
entirely the remaining points of the Phenician heads, enlarging the 
horizontal strokes, as well as altering the position and length of 
several cross-lines ; while at the same time by separating the single 
letters and the stiff ornaments which proceeded from the hands of 
tasteless writers, it lost again the attributes of a cursive character, 
and became a pointed, broken one. Hence it has received the 
appellation V^~}\? 3H3, square character. But it would give an 
erroneous view of the question to regard the square character as a 
development of the old one. It is chiefly of foreign origin. It was 
adopted by the Jews from another people. Yet the one could not 
have been formally and at once exchanged for the other. Such 
alterations are usually made by degrees. It is curious to observe 
how the external influence operating on the old Hebrew modified and 
renewed the ancient character. The Aramasan influence, itself acting 
through a cursive character, did not stamp that cursive character on 
the old Hebrew ; but rather led to a revival of the separation and 
distinctness of letters characteristic of the antique form. 

In maintaining that the change from the old Hebrew character to the 
square one was of Aramasan origin, and that it was not sudden but gra- 
dual, we must not lose sight of the existence of two principles which 
modify more or less all kinds of writings, i.e. tachygraphy and 
calligraphy. It was tachygraphy, or the striving after convenience 
and facility, which had begun to affect the old Hebrew writing seen 
on the Maccabean coins, where the approaches to a cursive form may 
be easily recognised. And it was the principle of calligraphy, or the 
striving after elegance and regularity of form, which may be noticed 
in the square character, where the letters are separate, distinct, well- 
proportioned. Yet the foreign element was still predominant, acting 
perhaps through the tachy graphical principle mainly ; whereas the 
calligraphical, apj^arent in the square character, seems to have pro- 
ceeded from a feeling of resistance to the other, and may be 
attributed perhaps to the circumstances in which the Jews stood 
towards the Samaritans. 3 

1 Bilder und Schriften der Vorzeit, vol. ii. § 101. 115. 

- See Beleuchtung dunkler Stellen der altestestamentlichen Textgeschiehte, reprinted 
from the Studien und Kritiken for 1830, p. 39. et seqq. 
3 Hupfeld, Beleuchtung, u. s. w., p. 13. et scqq. 



The Hebreiv Characters. 17 

But here a difficult and disputed point arises as to the people from 
■whom the square character was derived. Were they Babylonians or 
Syrians? The latter is strenuously maintained by Hupfeld, who 
adduces ingenious and cogent arguments in favour of it. The former 
is more generally adopted, as by Kopp, Ewald, Winer, and others. 
A good deal of stress is laid by the advocates of the latter on the 
phrase 'H-l^X 3HD, applied in the Talmud to the square or modern 
character. This they explain Assyrian writing, i. e., Chaldean. And 
it must be confessed that such is the most natural interpretation. 
Hupfeld however takes it as an appellative, in contrast with j'jn, the 
word applied by the Talmudists to the old Hebrew character re- 
tained by the Samaritans. He translates it firm, strong, deriving it 
from the verb IK'K. 1 There are at least four coins of Bar-Cochba 
known to be in existence, inscriptions on which are in characters 
exactly similar to the Maccabean coin- writing. 2 But this fact is not 
so important in its relation to the time when the change from one 
character to another took place, as some may suppose ; for there is 
reason to believe that Bar-Cochba made use of the genuine Macca- 
bean stamp introduced by Simon for some purpose or other, inasmuch 
as the very same emblems appear on his as on the Maccabean ones ; 
and the old character, so far from being current at the time of Bar- 
Cochba, was disliked, if we may judge from B. Elieser of Modin, a 
contemporary of Bar-Cochba, denying that the Torah or law, had 
been originally written in the Samaritan character. 

But the Palmyrene inscriptions, whose connection with the square 
Hebrew none can doubt, appear to us to refer the consummation of 
the change from the one character into the other to the last half of 
the first century. And it is probably safer to hold by the Syrian 
than the Chaldean origin of the alteration, agreeably to the view of 
Hupfeld. The commencement of the change, however, may be 
referred to the second century before Christ, thus allowing three 
centuries for its consummation. We are not insensible to the 
modifications which Havernick 3 , Winer 4 , Herbst 5 , and others would 
introduce into the theory first wrought out with admirable skill by 
Hupfeld, on the principles of Kopp's great book. But it seems to us 
that some of them would take the Aramaean commencement of the 
change too far back towards the time of Ezra. The Maccabean 
coin-writing stands in its way, if not the coins of Bar-Cochba, 
both bearing the old Phenician or Hebrew. The only objection to 
the bringing of the change into the first century of the Christian era 
is a passage in St. Matthew's Gospel, (v. 8), from which it would 
seem to follow, that the law was then written in the square or 

1 Hupfeld, Beleuchtung, u. s. w., p. 50. 

: These four are partly in the Bibliotheque Royale at Paris, and partly in London. 
Four have been known for some time, and are described in various works, especially by 
Bayer and Eckhel. But one is suspicious, and may be omitted from the number. A 
fourth, which is unquestionably genuine, is in the British Museum. See an account of it 
in Davidson's Bib. Crit., vol. i. p. 35. ; and comp. the excellent note of Graetz in his 
Geschichte der Juden, vol. iv. pp. 513, 514. 

3 Einleit., vol. i. 1. p. 285. et segq. 

4 Biblisches Realworterbuch, vol. ii., article Schreibkunst, Schrift, 

5 Einleituug in die heiligen Schriften des Alten Testaments, part i. p. 61 etseqq. 
TOL. II. C 



18 Biblical Criticism. 

modern character, because yod is referred to as the smallest letter of 
the alphabet. But this may allude to Greek Matthew, and the Greek 
alphabet ; or, the square character had been partially introduced at 
that time. We cannot admit the Jewish tradition which attributes 
the change to Ezra to be true in any sense, even in the limited one 
held by Gesenius, who, assuming that both characters, the Aramsean 
and the old Hebrew, were used together after the exile, endeavours to 
justify the late use of the ancient letters by appealing to the parallel 
use of the Kufic character on the Mohammedan coins after the Nischi 
had been employed in writing ; and to the probability that the Mac- 
cabees had a mercantile interest in imitating the coinage of the Phe- 
nicians. 1 We believe that no scholar since the researches of Kopp 
abides by the tradition embodied in the Talmud, Origen, and Jerome, 
that Ezra exchanged the one character for the other. But there has 
been of late a desire to carry up the commencement of the change 
toAvards Ezra's time, and to attribute the foreign origin of the square 
letters to the Babylonians. Against this the Palmyrene militates, 
showing that the square character was developed out of an alphabet 
having a close affinity to the Palmyrene, which could only be Syrian, 
while at the same time the coin-writing of the Maccabees harmonises 
with the Palmyrene inscriptions in bringing the time of complete 
change into the first century of the Christian era. 2 



CHAP. IV. 

HEBREW VOWEL POINTS. 



The controversy carried on two hundred years ago respecting the 
antiquity of the vowel points terminated in the general acknowledg- 
ment of their comparatively recent origin, without throwing any 
light on the nature of the original Hebrew vocalisation. 

In the Hebrew alphabet there are only two letters which serve as 
vowels, viz., yod and vau, representing i and u respectively, and 
often o and e. All the other vowel sounds are denoted by points 
and small lines placed above and beneath the consonants ; and even 
the two vowel letters vau and yod attain their significance and power 
only by such points and lines, so that they cannot be termed vowel- 
marks by themselves. They are otiose, meaningless vowel-bearers, 
and therefore termed quiescent. 

In developing the original vowel-system of the Hebrews, two 
positions appear indubitable. The one is, that the original vocalisa- 
tion was much simpler than it is now ; the other, that the writing 
continued in its first state even after the vocalisation had been 
extended, without inventing signs for the newly-added tones. The 

1 Geschichte dcr Hebriiisclien Sprache unci Schrift, p. 150. 

2 See the tables in Gesenius's Monumenta Phenicia, part iii., first five plates ; the 
plate prefixed to Hupfeld's Hebriiische Grammatik ; that prefixed to Davidson's Biblical 
Criticism, and the third chapter of the last-named treatise. 



Hebrew Vowel Points. \ Q 

first of these positions has been arrived at by a wide analogy of lan- 
guage ; the other appears from the facts of the case. 

Like all primitive languages, the Hebrew had at first the three 
primitive vowels a, i, u. But in writing, the two last only, viz., 
i and u, which possess also a consonantal power, have peculiar 
letters to represent them, yod and vau; the purest and predomi- 
nant vowel a, having no sign of its own. We may therefore con- 
ceive of the oldest Hebrew writing as a kind of syllable-writing, 
in which every letter was uttered with the vowel-sound a, the sim- 
plest and purest of all, most resembling a natural emission of the 
breath; whereas the vowels i and u, nearer to consonant sounds, 
and making the consonants ai, au, by union with a of the con- 
sonant before them, were represented by the same letters which 
expressed their consonant sounds. Hence the vowel-sound a was 
always supplied where the written representatives of the other 
two vowels i and u did not appear. Of this original predominance 
of the a vowel, important traces still remain in the Arabic and 
Ethiopic languages, where the oldest vocalisation has been most 
faithfully retained. 

In progress of time, this simple vowel-system, if such it can be 
appropriately termed, extended itself by the intermediate sounds 
e and o, which took place by obscuration of the clear high a into b 
and o, both in an impure utterance of it and in intentional modifica- 
tion of the sound ; by obscuration of i and u into e and 6 ; and by 
contracting the diphthongs ai, arc, into e, 6. One should have 
expected from the analogy of other languages, that this extension of 
vowel-sounds would have been designated by additional letters, as in 
Greek. But in Shemitic that was not done. The writing remained 
the same ; and the additional vowels were regarded either as so many 
auxiliary tones to the consonants, or as modifications of i and u. 
When looked upon as auxiliary sounds to the consonants, like the 
primitive vowel a whence they were derived, they did not of 
course obtain any outward sign or representative. When regarded 
as modifications of i and u, they had the same symbols as i and u, 
viz. yod and vau. In this manner the entire series of vowels, 
a, e, i, o, u, with all their shades and distinctions of sound had but 
two representative letters. And even these were frequently omitted, 
both in the inscriptions on stones and coins, where the hard material 
led to as much abbreviation as possible ; and in the oldest books of 
the Bible. The scriptio defectiva is well known. In the final syllable 
however, or that with the tone on it, they were placed with consi- 
derable regularity. With such simple, imperfect vocalisation was 
the Hebrew language satisfied, as long as it was a living one. The 
deficiencies were not felt much, because they could be so readily 
supplied in speaking ; and men did not write or read much in those 
times. After the captivity, when some literary activity began, the 
inconveniences of the old vowel notation began to be felt in the same 
proportion as a knowledge of the language itself decreased among the 
people ; and assistance was given in the more frequent use of the 
vowel letters vau and yod, as well as of K for a. This orthography 



20 Biblical Criticism. 

appears in the later books of the Old Testament, which belong to the 
post-exile times ; where the so-called scriptio plena has always been 
recognised as a feature distinguishing those books from the more 
ancient ones. The same expedient is found in a much greater degree 
in the Samaritan Pentateuch, as well as in the Talmudic and 
Rabbinic dialect. 1 

At the time when the Septuagint version was made, the Hebrew 
vocalisation had not attained to its latest form ; and, therefore 
it deviates in many instances from the present. In the Tar- 
gums it appears much more fixed and definite. In the Talmud 
and Jerome it is still more settled, agreeing in the main with 
what it became afterwards. But neither the Talmud nor Jerome 
recognise the vowel-points. They were of later origin, as has 
been proved by Hupfeld. 2 Hence they must be put later than 
the sixth century of the Christian era. The ambiguity arising from 
the want of vowel-signs must have been acceptable to the Talmudists. 
So far from their exhibiting any feeling of the want of them, their 
principle that the traditional word must not be written repressed 
such feeling ; for the appending of vowel-points would have pre- 
vented very many of those plays on terms and applications to 
didactic purposes founded on an ambiguous because unpointed text, 
in which they loved to indulge. The Talmudic period must have 
elapsed and a new one of literary activity commenced, before the 
vowel-point system began. This is confirmed by the fact that, in 
MSS. of the law intended for synagogue use, the vowel-points are 
not put, because the form of such MSS. is accurately prescribed in 
the Talmud, in contrast with the usage of the Syrians and Arabians 
who furnish their copies with a complete vocalisation and interpunc- 
tion, contenting themselves with unvowelled ones for common use. 

After the completion of the Talmud, the Jews oppressed and 
scattered, felt the necessity of fixing their oral traditions by writing, 
so that they might not be lost. This led to the development of the 
present Masoretic system — a complicated and artificial apparatus — 
which could not have proceeded from one person, or have been the 
work of a single century. It was made by successive steps. This 
indeed cannot be proved, yet it has been rendered highly probable 
from various circumstances. The historical relations of the Jews of 
that time to the Syrians and Arabians, a philological comparison of 
the vowel-systems belonging to the latter with the Masoretic one, 
and other historical circumstances combine to show that it was 
unfolded gradually and successively from simpler rudiments. In the 
seventh century, the Syrians and Arabians had a vowel-designation, 
which, setting out with simple diacritic signs and points, was de- 
veloped by degrees into a complete phonetic representation of vowel- 
sounds. The vocalisation-system, already existing among the Syrians 
and Arabians, gave rise to the Masoretic and furnished the basis of it. 
To what minuteness these learned Jews who were employed in fixing 
the Masorah in writing carried out the vowel-system, is apparent to 

1 See Hupfeld, Grammatik, p. 54. et seqq. 

2 Kritische Beleuclitung, u. s. w., p. 62. et seqq. 






Hebrew Vowel Points. 2 1 

all. The finest and most delicate distinctions of sound were intended 
to be preserved by it. The Syro- Arabian influence which originated 
and affected the Masoretic vowel-system has been minutely investi- 
gated and maintained by Hupfeld. 1 But Ewald denies the Arabian 
influence 2 , attributing the vocalisation merely to a Syrian source. 
It is hard however to resist the proofs of Arabian origin and 
influence. Jewish grammarians reduce all the vowels to three 
fundamental ones; and the Arabic names of them in the book Kosri 
coincide with the Hebrew vowels. We may place the development 
of the vowel-system from the seventh till the tenth centuries, at 
Tiberias, where there was a famous Jewish academy. At the begin- 
ning of the eleventh century, R. Juda Chiug mentions all the seven 
vowels ; and the Spanish Rabbins of the eleventh and twelfth 
centuries know nothing of their modern origin. 

A MS. at Odessa, examined and described by Pinner, reveals 
the existence of another vowel-system, different from the Masoretic 
one. In it the points, with one exception, are all above the letters, 
and their forms are unlike those of the usual vowels. It represents 
the vocalisation developed by the Jews in Babylon; and has there- 
fore been called by Ewald the Assyrian-Hebrew. But Roediger, 
with more propriety, calls it Persian-Jewish. 3 Yet though dif- 
fering from the Palestinian, it may be traced back to the same 
simple basis. Both were evolved out of the same rudiments, as is 
thought by Ewald, to whose essay, as well as to that of Roediger, we 
refer for a particular account of these strange vowels. 4 Hupfeld 
thinks otherwise. 

The value of the Masoretic vowel-system, awkward and com- 
plicated as it is, cannot be lightly estimated. It is indeed the repre- 
sentation of a tradition, but of the best and oldest tradition we can 
obtain. 

The great Hebrew vowel controversy, which formerly excited such 
interest among Biblical scholars, is now matter of history. We can 
only refer to it in the briefest terms. The different critics who took 
part in it may be thus arranged: — 

1. The Buxtorfs, father and son, following most Rabbins of the 
middle-age period, with Loescher and almost all orthodox theologians 
of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, contended for the 
originality or divine origin of the points. 

2. Their late origin was intimated by Abenezra, expressly asserted 
by Elias Levita, and became current among the Reformers, Luther, 
Calvin, and others, Buxtorf, in his Tiberias, attempted a refutation 
of this view. It was defended by Cappellus in his celebrated work 
Arcanum Punctationis Revelatum (1624), Avhich was answered by 
Buxtorf junior. Cappellus and John Morin replied. 

3. An intermediate view was adopted by others. They assumed 
the existence of an older and simpler vowel^system, consisting either 



1 Beleuchtung, u. s. w., p. 99. et seqq. 

2 Lehrbuch cler Hebraischen Sprache, p. 115. 

3 See the Hallisch. AUgem. Lit, Zeit. Aug. 1848, No. 169. 

4 Jahrbucher cler biblischen Wissenschaft for 1848, p. 160. et seqq % 



22 Biblical Criticism. 

of three primitive vowels or of diacritic points. The oldest advocates 
of this hypothesis were Rivetus and Hottinger. It also was held by 
many able scholars of a more recent age, such as J. D. Michaelis, 
Eichhorn, Jalin, Bertholdt. 1 



CHAP. V. 

HEBREW ACCENTS. 



The Masoretic accentuation-system is closely connected with the 
vowels. The origin of both must have been contemporaneous. Like 
the vowel-system, the accentuation cannot be the work of one man or 
one century. It has been gradually evolved out of simple elements to 
its present state of minute and complicated signs. It is highly pro- 
bable that the simpler Syriac accentuation furnished a starting-point 
for its further development and extension. 

The Hebrew accents are of a rhythmical nature. They are the 
exponents of rhythmical relations in their manifold gradations. The 
rhythmical swell of the voice, its rising and sinking, is necessarily 
regulated by the sense, while it is outwardly expressed in the alterna- 
tion of the tones with relation to height, and the intensity of the tone 
itself or the accent. Hence the pauses or members of this move- 
ment must be at once members of the sense and of the tone. They are 
both logical and musical, i. e., they point out the relations existing 
between one word with another, and also one sentence with another ; 
while they serve as musical notes to regulate the cantillation of the 
Hebrew Scriptures. In the former view they bear an analogy to the 
marks of punctuation employed by occidentals. In the latter they bear 
an analogy to musical notation. Thus they are the exponents both of 
logical or grammatical, and musical relations. They express a regu- 
lated, solemn kind of declamation, which was regarded by the Hebrews 
as suited to the sacred Scriptures, not the pronunciation or intona- 
tions of common discourse. This view of the nature and uses ' of 
the accents is confirmed by the twofold name appropriated to them, 
D^fpytp, tastes, with obvious reference to their hermeneutical signifi- 
cance as punctuation marks ; and r\Wti } music-notes. 2 

Like the vowel-points, the accents also furnished ground for 
controversy in former times. The prevailing view in the seventeenth 
century was, that their design was musical. But after the middle of 
that century, another opinion began to be advanced, viz., that they 
were intended to point out the degree of connection existing be- 
tween the different members of a sentence. They were thus 
supposed to have a logical or grammatical significance. When 
either of these views was held up as the proper, original design 
of the accents, objections could not fail to be adduced against it. 
The true theory is that which unites both. In assigning to them a 

1 See Gesenius, Geschichte, der Heb. u. s. w., p. 182. etseqq. Havernick, Einleit., i. 1. 
p. 304. et seqq. Rett's Einleit., §§ 168, 169., and Davidson's Bib. Crit., vol. i. chap. iv. 

2 See Hupfcld, Grammatik, p. 115. etseqq. 



Means of acquiring a Knowledge of Hebrew. 23 

rhythmical import, both are necessarily included. The whole system 
of accentuation was first scientifically unfolded and explained by 
Ewald and Hupfeld, each after his own manner. Before they wrote, 
discussions were little less than empirical} 

Instead of speaking now of the cognate languages separately, 
which should be done perhaps because of their relation to the 
Hebrew, we shall introduce a very brief notice of them into the 
following chapter where they will naturally belong. 



CHAP. VI. 






MEANS BY WHICH A KNOWLEDGE OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE MAT BE 
ACQUIRED. 

There are various sources whence a fundamental knowledge of 
Hebrew may be obtained. A language which has been dead for 
more than two thousand years, and is preserved but imperfectly in 
the limited remains of Old Testament literature, needs a variety of 
helps towards its thorough elucidation. Happily these are not scanty 
or insufficient, when all the circumstances of the case are fairly 
considered. The means of obtaining a sure acquaintance with 
Hebrew are of three kinds, viz., historical, philological, and philo- 
sophical. 

1. Under the historical may be placed, Jewish tradition. This is 
preserved in the writings of the Rabbins, especially those of the 
Jewish grammarians, lexicographers, and commentators of the middle 
ages, such as R. Saadias Graon, R. Juda ben Karish, R. Menahem 
ben Saruk, R. Salomon Parchon, R. Juda Chiug, R. Jona or 
Abulwalid, R. Salomon Jarchi, David Kimchi, R. ben Moses or 
Ephodaeus, Aben Ezra, Tanchum of Jerusalem. The majority of 
these wrote in 
part imprinted. 

Jewish tradition is also preserved in the different ancient versions 
of the Old Testament, especially the Chaldee Paraphrases, the 
Alexandrine version, the Syriac Peshito, the Vulgate of Jerome, and 
the Arabic of R. Saadias Gaon. The value of these depends in 
part on their antiquity and their laterality. They often lead to the 
determination of the usage of a particular word where other helps 
fail ; but they must be used with discrimination, since the Jews 
mixed up their own conjectures with the traditional, and did not 
always understand the original text, or render it faithfully into other 
languages. 2 

2. To the philological means belong a comparison of the individual 
phenomena of the language, which mutually supply and illustrate one 

1 See Hupfeld, Grammatik, p. 115. et seqq. Ewald, Lehrbuch, p. 132. et seqq. 

- See Gesenius, on the sources of Hebrew Philology and Lexicography, translated in 
the American Biblical Repository for January 1833, article I. De Wctte's Einleitung, 
part i. §§ 35, 36 , sixth edition ; and Keil's Einleit, p. 365. et seqq. 

C 4 



24 Biblical Criticism. 

another. Thus, in a grammatical view, those existing forms should 
be searched out which contain in them the traces of an older forma- 
tion, and so furnish an index to the origin of the present forms, viz. 
the anomalous forms, which generally belong to the oldest — those 
c'thibs or textual readings generally changed for ordinary forms 
by the Masoretes ; proper names, in which several things that would 
be otherwise lost may be discovered ; and a comparison of older and 
younger forms in the different parts of the Old Testament. In a 
lexical respect, the context and parallel places should be compared, 
as serving to show that the signification of a word may be discovered 
from the connection and can be confirmed by parallels ; besides etymo- 
logy, which may deduce the signification of derivatives from still 
existing roots. To this head also belongs a comparison of other 
Shemitic dialects, a procedure quite necessary not only for the 
purpose of explaining words, but also for penetrating into the entire 
grammatical structure of the Hebrew language. By such com- 
parison, lost roots may be restored ; significations uncertain, because 
they are of rare occurrence in Hebrew, and analogies explanatory 
of the usus loquendi, may be ascertained. But here the comparison 
should not be partial. It ought not to be confined to one dialect 
only but extended alike to all, and that, not in a superficial way, 
but fundamentally, so as to comprehend the internal structure and 
peculiar characteristics of each. A brief historical notice of these 
kindred dialects is now subjoined. The principal of them are the 
Aramaean and Arabic, with their respective secondary branches. 

The Aramaean language was anciently vernacular in the extensive 
region included under Aram, i. e. Syria and Mesopotamia. No 
remains of it, as spoken by the people themselves, now exist. Some 
inscriptions in the dialect of Palmyra, belonging to the first three 
centuries of the Christian era, have been found; but they throw 
little light on the old Aramaean. From the Aramasan come the 
Chaldee and Syriac. These two have been usually distinguished 
from one another, both dialectically and geographically. The one is 
called East Aramaean, the other West Aramcean, because the Chaldee 
was supposed to be spoken in Babylonia and Chaldea, the Syriac in 
Syria and northern Mesopotamia. But the distinction has been denied 
by some eminent scholars. The Chaldee and Babylonian we know 
only from Jewish memorials. They are wholly of Palestinian origin. 
It is also asserted that the so-called Chaldee wants the peculiar 
impress of a dialect. Its derivations from the Syriac are either 
imaginary, such as the pronunciation of the vowels, or mere Hebra- 
isms. Hence it has been inferred that the two are identical, without 
denying however the early existence of a proper Aramsean- 
Babylonian dialect. What is asserted is, that we have no historical 
proof of the existence of the two dialects Chaldee and Syriac. It is 
said that after the Hebrew ceased to be vernacular, we know of the 
existence of but one language current from the Mediterranean Sea 
to the river Tigris, whose development and cultivation took place 
chiefly at Edessa and Nisibis, and that no dialects can be traced 
in it, When it passed over to the Jews, it was mixed with Hebrew. 



Means of acquiring a Knowledge of Hebrew. 2.5 



the Chaldee portions of the Old Testament, and in a less degree, 
in the Targurns. On the contrary, the Hebrew language coloured 
with Aramaean constituted the so-called New-Hebrew, exhibited in 
the Talmud and Rabbinical writings. According to this view, the 
so-called Chaldee, as a living dialect distinct from the Syriac, had no 
known existence. It was nothing but a branch of the one Ara- 
maean tongue mixed with Hebrew. Such is the opinion of Hupfeld ', 
Fiirst 2 , and De Wette 3 , who deny the difference of the two dialects. 
On the other hand, it has been argued that the Chaldee may be 
distinguished in many ways, both grammatically and lexically, from 
the Syriac, so that it must be regarded as the East Aramaean dialect 
once spoken in Babylonia. This is maintained by Hoffmann 4 , Winer 5 , 
Havernick 6 , and Dietrich. 7 The Syriac language has been termed 
the West-Aramcean, in contradistinction from the Chaldee or Baby- 
lonian. To us now it is a New- Aramaean dialect, that of the Syrian . 
Christians, who had a considerable literature of their' own from the 
middle of the second century. Into it the Scriptures were trans- 
lated ; and in the theological schools at Edessa and Nisibis it was 
further developed. Ecclesiastical and theological subjects were the 
circle within which it moved. It has not remained pure in the 
course of centuries, but has admitted foreign elements, especially 
Greek. The Syriac dialect is not extinct. It is still used as the 
church-language of the Maronites or Syrian Christians ; and in a 
corrupted vulgar dialect it is spoken as their vernacular tongue, at 
the present day, by the Syrian Christians in Kurdistan and Meso- 
potamia. 8 

The Aramaean is closely allied to the Hebrew and serves to throw 
considerable light on it ; but it is much poorer than the Arabic. 

The principal remains of what is called the Chaldee are in the 
portions in Ezra and Daniel already indicated, and in the Targums 
or Chaldee paraphrases of the Old Testament. 

The chief document extant in the Syriac language, is the Peshito 
version of the Old and New Testaments. 

The Samaritan dialect is a mixture of Hebrew and Aramaean, like 
the Chaldee. It exists in the translation of the Samaritan Penta- 
teuch, and in some MS. poems in the British Museum, the most 
important of which have been published by Gesenius. 

The Arabic language is the richest and most fully developed of all 
the Shemitic family. In vowels and consonants, in word-stems and 
grammatical forms, it is more copious than the Hebrew. Before Mo- 
hammed, it was confined to Arabia, and cultivated for the most part 
through poetry. But with Islamism, it spread over the greater por- 
tion of Asia and Africa, while its literature increased and extended 

1 Beleuchtung, u. s. w., p. 45. et seqq. 

2 Lehrgebiiude der Aram. Idiomc, p. 5. et seqq. 

3 Einleit. pp. 53, 54. l Grammatica Syriaca, p. 4. 

5 Grammatik d. Bibl. und Targum. Chald., p. 5. and Realworterbuch, s. v. Chaldaer. 

6 Einleit. i. p. 103. et seqq. 7 De Scrmonis Chald. proprietate. 

8 Roediger iiber d. Ai-amaische Vulgarsprachc der Hentigen Syr. Christen in Zeit- 
schrift f. d. Kunde des Morgenland, ii. p. 77. et seqq., 314. et seqq. 



26 Biblical Criticism. 

into all departments. On many accounts it is the most interesting 
of the Shemitic languages, next to Hebrew. 

There are few or no memorials of its most ancient form. Pro- 
bably it had at first simpler forms than now, more analogous to those 
of the Hebrew than we see in its fully developed state. But as far 
as it can be traced it is much richer than the Hebrew orthographi- 
cally, grammatically, and lexically. Hence it is a fertile source of 
Hebrew etymology and lexicography. Among the numerous inde- 
pendent tribes who used it there must have been many dialects. We 
now know however of the existence of only two principal ones. 
The Himyaric in Yemen was different from the dialect of central 
Arabia, and bore a nearer affinity to the Hebrew. 1 This was entirely 
supplanted by the Koreishite dialect, prevailing in north-western 
Arabia especially at Mecca ; the latter being elevated by Moham- 
med, so as to become the language of books and the universal language 
. of the people. It is this therefore that is called the Arabic language. 
All Arabic literature is in it. After the fourteenth and fifteenth 
centuries, the classical gave way to the vulgar Arabic as spoken by 
the people, into which latter many foreign and Turkish words were 
adopted. But it is less copious, having lost many forms and features 
of cultivation possessed by the more ancient language, and by that 
means has been made to approximate to the Hebrew more nearly. 
Its fewer and shorter forms render it so far simpler, and more analo- 
gous to the idioms of Hebrew and Ararnsean. 

" The personal and continued perusal of Arabic writers," says 
Gesenius, "will be indispensable to the truly learned interpreter of the 
Old Testament ; and will always be to him a rich source of parallels 
and comparisons for language in the broadest sense of the word, as 
also for ideas, poetical figures, &c." 2 

From the Himyaric or dialect of southern Arabia, which was 
wholly supplanted by the present written Arabic, proceeded the 
Ethiopic. This is less rich and cultivated than the Arabic, yet it 
comes nearer the Hebrew and Aramaean. It is known by a transla- 
tion of the Scriptures existing in it, and by various ecclesiastical 
works. In Abyssinia it continued to be spoken till the fourteenth 
century, when it was supplanted by the Amharic, which is still 
spoken. The Geez dialect is employed only in writing. Luclolf 
has primary merit in handling the Ethiopic ; while in recent times, 
Hupfeld and Drechsler have investigated parts of it. 

3. To the philosophical means for acquiring a fundamental know- 
ledge of Hebrew belongs an examination of the analogy of language 
generally. Here abstract speculations respecting the nature of lan- 
guages will be of little use, without a thorough study of other pri- 
mitive dialects especially the Indo-Germanic or Japhetic. In this 
field much remains to be done ; for the path has as yet been but 
partially indicated and trodden. 

1 See Gesenius in the Allgem. Litt. Zeit. of Halle for 1841, No. 123., and Roedigcr's 
Excurs. iiber Himjar. Inschriften in Wellstcd's Keisen in Arabien, vol. ii. p. 352. et seqq. 

2 In the Bib. Repos. for 1S33, p. 31. 






Criticism of the Text. 27 

CHAP. VII. 

CRITICISM OF THE TEXT. 

The criticism of the text has to do with every thing that the authors 
themselves of the Old Testament put down in writing or that is 
now written. It includes, therefore, the characters they used, and 
every thing palceographical. The dividing and interpunction also, 
though not j)roceeding from the original writers, may be brought 
into the present topic. Under the external form of the text, we may 
place what relates to the characters employed by the sacred authors ; 
the diacritic signs, vowels, and accents afterwards added ; the various 
divisions greater or less which the text has had, or has now. After 
sketching the history of the external form of the text, we shall proceed 
to handle the text itself and its history, including the changes made in 
it, as well as the means employed by criticism to purify and restore it 
to its original condition. 

HISTORY OF THE EXTERNAL FORM OF THE TEXT. 

We have already considered the nature of the characters employed 
by the Hebrews at different times, the vowel-system appended to 
the consonants at a later period, together with the accentuation. The 
various divisions, marks of distinction, and interpunction occurring 
in the text must now be touched upon. 

The ancient Hebrews, like most other people of antiquity, wrote 
continuously without an intervening space between one word and 
another. Yet not always nor exclusively so. Most of the Phenician 
inscriptions indeed have no division of words ; but others have it 
indicated by a point. Words closely connected with one another 
were not so separated. l It is impossible to ascertain whether the 
Hebrews formerly used this point to indicate the separation of words: 
or whether they had small open spaces between words, without the 
points. It is all but certain that they did employ small intervals 
for dividing both words and sentences, though they did not follow 
that practice with consistency or uniformity. Perhaps the points 
were not used everywhere along with these intervening spaces, but 
only occasionally. With the introduction of the square character, 
the separation of words by small interstices became general, though 
in later times the practice was not always strictly followed in MSS., 
perhaps from negligence. On comparing the Septuagint version 
with our present Hebrew text, Ave see that the translators have de- 
viated in many instances from the modern division of words ; but the 
departures are commonly found in cases where words are closely 
connected, and prove no more than the fact that there was no regular 
uniform division in the MSS. employed by the translators. 

In the Talmud, it is strictly prescribed how much space should be 
between words in sacred MSS. designed for the synagogue. 

1 Gcsenius, Geschichte d. Heb. u. s. y?., p. 171. 



28 Biblical Criticism. 

Divisions in the sense — 'larger or smaller sections — were early 
marked in prose by open spaces of different kinds and magnitudes. 
Such spaces formed in the Pentateuch those divisions of the text 
known by the name •"i^S, plural fi'V^ns, perashioth ; and were dis- 
tinguished either as open, Din-ma, or as closed, n'lD-inp, according as 
they stood before sections beginning a line or in the middle of lines. 
In Masoretic MSS. and editions they have the initial letters s and 
D. The open divisions, or such as begin with a in an open space, 
were intended to denote a distinction of topics or change in the 
subject-matter, though sometimes they served also to indicate logical 
or rhythmical alterations in the same subject, as a change of speakers or 
the members in a genealogy. The closed divisions, or those beginning 
with d in an open space, mark small separations in the sense. There 
are 669 of these perashioth in the Pentateuch. 1 Similar divisions of 
the text are also found in the Prophets and Hagiographa, and are 
carefully observed in the more accurate MSS. and editions, in con- 
formity with very ancient tradition. Their existence can be carried 
up to a time anterior to the Talmud. Several of them are expressly 
referred to in the Mishna ; while in the Gemara, the distinction of 
open and closed perashioth is placed among the inviolable requirements 
of sacred orthography, and its origin traced up to Moses. Hence 
the commencement of these sections or paragraphs belongs to the 
earliest times of the public reading of the Scriptures. Keil goes too 
far in thinking that they may have proceeded from the writers them- 
selves of the divine books. 2 

In like manner in the poetical books and pieces, single sentences 
or rhythmical members were marked off line-wise from the earliest 
times of sacred calligraphy, into D^-IDS, crrlyoL, verses, or into KwKa kclI 
KOfi/iara, i.e. larger and smaller members of verses. The high pro- 
bability of this ancient practice found among the Greeks, Romans, 
and Arabians, being followed in the Old Testament text, is deducible 
from the fact that it constantly appears in the poetical pieces inserted 
in the Pentateuch and historical books ; that the poetical books in 
many of the oldest MSS. are still so divided; that MSS. of the LXX. 
and the old Latin versions were so written; that Josephus and Philo 
compare the aTi'ypi or verses with the classical verses ; and that the 
fathers treat them as old or original. In our post-Masoretic MSS. 
the division has been laid aside. 

Corresponding to the rhythmical division into sentences in the 
poetical books, there was introduced into the prose writings, or at 
least the reading-books, a logical period-division called D^-IDS. This 
is mentioned so early as in the Mishna, as a division to be observed 
in reading the law and the prophets. Probably it was introduced 
for the purpose of contributing to the easier reading and interpreta- 
tion of Scripture in the synagogues. The Gemara refers it to Moses. 
Our present division into verses arose out of these D^-IDQ, and nearly 
coincides with them, as has been inferred from old lists of them given 
in the Talmud, which agree substantially with the modern verses. 

1 Hupfeld, Grammatik, p. 85. el seqq. 2 Einleit, pp. 579, 580. 



External Form of the Text. 29 

Whether these period- or verse-divisions were at first marked by 
outward signs, or handed down orally, is a question more curious 
than important. The former is maintained by Prideaux, with consi- 
derable ingenuity. l The latter is advocated by Hupfeld, because the 
Talmud never mentions any external notation of them, often as it 
speaks of verses ; the synagogue rolls ignore them ; the observance 
of them is represented as an art learned in schools ; and because the 
ancient translators vary in dividing verses. Had a notation of them 
been practised, it is probable that it would have been made merely 
by small intervening spaces. 2 It was not till after the Talmudic 
period that this verse-division was externally marked by two points (:) 
termed Soph-Pasuk. The same outward designation was introduced 
even into the poetical books, where it supplanted for the most part 
the ancient separation into a-rl^oi or sticks. Soph-Pasuk is older than 
our modern vowel points and accents ; for it is earlier mentioned 
than they. It is found in unpointed MSS. and editions, and always 
distinguished from the corresponding accent silluk. 3 

The traces of chapters in the Hebrew text which have sometimes 
been found in Jerome because he speaks of capitula, do not at all 
justify the idea that either the Hebrew perashioth, or something 
analogous to the modern chapters, were intended; they are mere 
arbitrary divisions, equivalent in signification to loci.* 

It has been thought that the D> 7?9 found in a MS. of R. Jacob 
ben Chayim and adopted in his edition of the Bible, furnished the 
first attempted division into chapters. There are 447 of these in the 
Old Testament. The present division into chapters is of Christian 
origin in the thirteenth century, some assigning it to Cardinal Hugo, 
others to Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury. In either 
case it was first adopted in a concordance to the Vulgate, whence it 
was borrowed by R. Nathan in the fifteenth century, who- undertook 
a similar concordance for the Hebrew Bible. The divisions of R. 
Nathan are found in Bomberg's Hebrew Bible of 1518. The intro- 
duction of verses into editions of the Hebrew Bible proceeded from 
Athias, a Jew of Amsterdam, in the first edition 1661. They had 
been previously in the Vulgate so early as 1558. 

Very different from the perashioth, or small sections characterised 
by open spaces, are the large perashioth or sections. These are of 
later origin than the small ones, and were intended to serve another 
purpose. They are reading-lessons for every Sabbath in the year, 
extending through the Pentateuch and 54 in number, to suit the 
Jewish intercalary year within which all are read. From their not 
being mentioned in the Mishna, but for the first time in the Masorah, 
and their being also ignored in the synagogue rolls, their late origin 
has been justly inferred. In places where these Sabbath-day sections 
coincide with the smaller perashioth, there are S2Q in the case of 
open sections, or DDD in the case of closed ones. 

1 Connection of the Old and New Testament, vol. i. p. 335. ed. 1719. 

2 Hupfeld, Grammatik, p. 99. et seqq. . 3 Ibid. p. 112. 
4 Ibid. p. 95. 



30 Biblical Criticism. 

Of like origin are the reading-lessons taken from the prophets, and 
written together on a separate synagogue roll, termed rrilttsn (from 
"•!?!>, to dismiss). These are mentioned so early as in the Mishna. 
The conjecture of Elias Levita respecting the origin of them is now 
exploded. He thinks they first began when Antiochus Epiphanes 
forbad the reading of the law. They were substituted for the 
sections in the law. Had Antiochus prohibited the one kind of lessons, 
he would have prohibited the other also. We see from the New 
Testament, that the prophets were then read in the synagogue ; but 
it seems to follow from Luke, iv. 16. &c, that the sections were not 
fixed. 

The various books of the Old Testament were divided by the Jews 
into three parts or classes ; '"Tjifi, the law ; DWij), the prophets ; and 
D*3-iri3, the Hagiographa or holy writings. A passage in the New 
Testament has been supposed to show that this division obtained in 
the time of our Saviour (Luke, xxiv. 44.), where by the Psalms it is 
thought the Hagiographa are meant, because that division begins 
with the book of Psalms. 

The law comprehended the Pentateuch or five books of Moses. 
When that portion was divided into five books is not known. It may 
have proceeded from the Alexandrine translators ; but we suppose it 
to have originated before. 

The prophets were divided into the former and latter; the former 
prophets meaning Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings; 
the latter including Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor 
prophets. 

The Hagiographa contained the Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song 
of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, 
Nehemiah, 1 and 2 Chronicles. Why these various books were put 
together in the third division it is impossible to discover. The 
difficulty respecting Daniel being placed there is considerable. One 
thing is tolerably clear, that his book was not so arranged, because 
the prophet foretold with great minuteness the coming of the 
Messiah and therefore the Jews were apprehensive lest the public 
reading of his, predictions should lead some to embrace the doctrines 
of Jesus Christ. 

The first English Testament divided into chapters and verses, was 
that published at Geneva, in 1558. The first English Bible divided 
into verses was also published at Geneva, by William Whittingham, 
Anthony Gilby, and Thomas Sampson, in 1560. 

The order of the books of the Old Testament in our English 
version is taken from the Yulgate and the Septuagint, the last of 
which changed materially the Jewish-Palestinian order of the 
books. J 

1 See Davidson's Biblical Crit., vol. i. chap. v. 



History of the Text. 31 



CHAP. VIII. 

HISTORY OF THE TEXT ITSELF. 

It is unnecessary to enumerate the different periods into which the 
critical history of the Old Testament text has been divided by differ- 
ent writers. We shall follow no formal arrangement. The most 
convenient is the division into two periods, viz., those of the im- 
printed and ■printed text. 

Notwithstanding the great care with which the Jews Avatched over 
the preservation of the sacred Scriptiu-es, and the excessive reverence 
they felt towards them, these writings have not escaped the common 
lot of all ancient documents frequently transcribed. Mistakes of 
various kinds have crept into the text. Various readings have arisen 
in the course of successive centuries. This might have been ex- 
pected from the nature of the case, notwithstanding the anxiety of 
the Jews for the integrity and purity of these books, unless a special 
miracle had interposed. 

False readings may be resolved into two classes, unintentional mis- 
takes committed by transcribers, and designed alterations. In the 
one case, simple negligence was the cause ; in the other, well-meant 
officiousness and desire to amend. 

1. To the former head we refer the following. Through imper- 
fect sight, the scribes substituted letters similar in shape for one 
another ; transposed letters, words, and sentences ; omitted letters, 
words, and sentences, especially when two terminated in the same 
manner. Examples are, n £?f, Nehem. xii. 3., and "W.3^ verse 14. ; 
$P?, Ezra, ii. 46.; I e<*>, Nehem. vii. 48.; K?i?3 X : N B*3-ron 1W nin» 
Bg>, 1 Chron. xiii. 6., and vbv &2)-\2r\ 3BV*njn»"fig BB> Nnpj '"1B&^ 
2 Sam. vi. 2. The last is preferable. Comp. 1 Chron. xvi. 
30 — 32. with Psalm xcvi. 9 — 11., the former being corrupt. 
WW) Psalm xviii. 42. Wf\ 2 Sam. xxii. 42. 'finn Nj??S in 2 
Sam. xxiii. 25., partly omitted in 1 Chron. xi. 27. In Psalm 
xxxvii. 28. is an omission by S/aoiotsXsvtov, or the similar ending of 
two clauses. The discrepancies of numbers in the historical books, 
especially in Kings and Chronicles, have been reconciled by the aid 
of this interchange of letters, on the assumption that letters were 
used to represent numbers. And it is now generally admitted that 
letters were so used. The conciliation of numbers in this manner 
was formerly attempted by Kennicott, and has been extensively 
applied by Reinke. 1 Mistakes were committed from imperfect 
hearing. Thus »&*», 2 Sam. xvii. 25., for ty^gft 1 Chron. ii. 17. ; 
% 1 Sam. xvii. 34., in several MSS. for n '^. Many examples 
of such mistakes as we have referred to these two heads, are ac- 
cumulated by Cappellus in the fifth and following chapters of bis 
Critica Sacra. But a number of his instances will not stand exa- 
mination, so that the list must be largely cut down. 

Mistakes must be attributed in like manner to defective memory. 
1 In his Beitrage ziir Erklarung des Alten Testament, vol. i. 



32 Biblical Criticism. 

A transcriber sometimes wrote freely, trusting too much to 
memory. Thus '** and ^ are interchanged in Leviticus, xxv. 36. ; 
"12H?! is interchanged with *ibfc»l in 2 Kings, i. 10.; nirr w ith D*i1&K 
often. And not only were words exchanged for one another, but 
they were occasionally omitted or changed for well known parallels, 
as in Isaiah lxiii. 16., -|?x> \yoh for -joej* D^IJJO. 

Mistakes of judgment were also committed, as in dividing words, 
in resolving abbreviations, in relation to the so-called custodes linearum, 
and the taking of marginal remarks into the text. Examples occur 
in Psalm xlviii. 15., where n , i»- < ?y should be niD^y . Psalm xxv. 17., 
»nipivoio i3*mrt for wpiroioi n*mn. In Jerem. vi. 11., '* nisn stood 
in the text, which the LXX. read *r"?0 = Tov S-vpov /xov. In Isaiah 
xxxv. 1, D1W is for uj>b», the D of the following ino having been 
written as a custos. In Isaiah, vii. 17., "1-1 B 5 *? "^ HK is an explanatory 
scholium, according to Gesenius and others. 

2. Mistakes were made designedly. Here it has been a point in 
dispute whether the Jews falsified the biblical text. Some few have 
maintained that they wilfully corrupted it. In one passage, Jerome 
hints a suspicion of this sort with respect to Deut. xxvii. 26. 1 ; but he 
elsewhere speaks decidedly, appealing at the same time to Origen's 
testimony, that the Jews did not falsify the text. 2 Indeed the 
charge is wholly improbable. Even in the passages which appear 
most favourable to the suspicion, Psalms xvi. 10., xxii. 17. ; Isaiah, 
xix. 18.; it cannot be substantiated. Yet some mistakes were com- 
mitted from an innocent, critical ojficiousness, substituting easier and 
apparently better readings for such as seemed less likely. In this 
respect the Samaritan scribes altered much, as is evident from the 
text of their Pentateuch compared with the Hebrew copy. In 1 
Chron. ii. 48. 1? T is in some MSS. n^*. In Psalm xxxvi. 2., ^ is 
in some copies \2P . Other examples, which however are merely of 
a probable kind, may be found in Eichhorn 3 and De Wette. 4 

Having thus spoken of the rise of various readings or mistakes in 
the text we may remark, that the school of Cappellus went to great 
excess in supposing many more errors than there are, and in correcting 
them by the aid of versions, parallels, or conjecture. Kennicott 
belonged to that school, and followed in the path of his master. 
Geddes also pursued the same way. The scholars of Germany did 
not take the same direction with equal zeal; though Bauer, Eichhorn, 

1 " incertum habemus, utrum LXX interpretes adcliderint 5 Mos. xxvii. 26. omnis 

homo et in hominibus, an in veteri Hebrseo ita fuerit et postea a Judscis deletum sit. .... 
Quam ob causam Samaritanorum Hebrsea voluraina relegens invcni ^3 scriptum esse et 
cum LXX interpretibus concordare. Frustra igitur illud tulerunt Judaji ne viderentur 
esse sub maledicto, sin non possent omnia complere, qua? scripta sunt ; cum antiquiores 
alterius quoque gentis litteras id positum fuisse testentur." Comment, in Galat., iii. 10. 
. 2 " Quod si aliquis dixerit Hebrseos libros postea a Judteis esse falsatos, audiat Origenem 
quid in octavo volumine Explanationum Esaia3 huic respondeat qurestiunculas : quod 
mmquam Dominus ct apostoli qui csetcra crimina arguunt in Scribis et Pharisteis, de 
hoc crimine, quod erat maximum, reticuissent. Sin autcm dixerint post adventum 
Domini Salvatoris et prEedicationem Apostolorum, libros Hebraeos fuisse falsatos, cachin- 
num tenere non potero, ut Salvator et Evangelistse et Apostoli ita testimonia protulerint, 
ut Judoai postea falsaturi crant." Comment, in Jes., cap. vi. 

3 Einleitung in das Alte Testament, vol. i. p. 306. ct scqq. 

4 Einleit., p. 124. ct seqq. 



History of the Text. 33 

and Vater, followed it to some extent. But Gesenius and his school 
wisely held by the principle, that the Masoretic text has mostly pre- 
served the genuine readings ; and they have always been averse to 
resort to the supposition of corruption. Above all, they have prac- 
tically protested against amending the Hebrew solely from one or 
two ancient versions, especially the LXX. Here Thenius is an ex- 
ception, who attributes far too much weight to the readings of the 
LXX. And we believe that Hitzig and Ewald have too often re- 
sorted to conjecture in changing the text. They have supposed 
corruptions where corruptions do not exist. Hengstenberg, on the 
other hand, has gone to an extreme in maintaining the uniform cor- 
rectness of the Masoretic text. He abides by it in cases where it is 
corrupt. The true medium, we apprehend, has been attained by 
Gesenius; and we should be sorry to see the methods of reaction 
followed by Hitzig, Ewald, or Thenius, again prevail. They are 
more mischievous than Hengstenberg's extreme notions. 

We come now to speak of the condition of the text before and at 
the close of the canon. Here there are few real data to guide the 
inquirer. Much depends on his preconceived opinions. He is left 
chiefly to conjecture. On the one hand it is maintained, that before 
the collection of sacred books was finally and definitely made, the 
Hebrew text met with very unfavourable treatment. As long as the 
different parts of the Old Testament circulated singly,- and before the 
collection obtained general recognition and sanction, the text is said 
to have suffered considerably. So it is asserted by Eichhorn, De 
Wette, and others. But the evidences adduced in favour of the 
view are liable to objection. Parallel psalms, with historical parallel 
chapters in different books, are adduced. The deviations in these, it 
must be admitted, are often perplexing. It is difficult, if not im- 
possible, in various instances, to reconciTe one statement with another. 
None but those who have minutely examined such differences, can 
be aware of their intractability in the hands of him who attempts 
to harmonise them. But we are not inclined to attribute them to 
transcribers. It is possible that copyists did take great liberties with 
writings that were often anonymous, and altered them arbitrarily; 
but it is improbable. We are persuaded that the things to which 
reference is made proceeded from the original writers or compilers 
of the books. Sometimes they took other writings, annals, genealo- 
gies, and such like, with which they incorporated additional matter, 
or which they put together with greater or less condensation. The 
Old Testament authors used the sources they employed with freedom 
and independence. Conscious of the aid of the Divine Spirit, they 
adapted their own productions, or the productions of others, to the 
wants of the times. But in these respects they cannot be said to 
have corrupted the text of Scripture. They made the text. When 
transcribers are blamed, they are often blamed wrongly. It should 
be recollected, that almost all the deviations from one another in 
parallel places belonging to different books, are not mistakes or cor- 
ruptions of the text, as has been assumed. Besides, in the case of 
such parallel sections, the one class was not always taken from the other. 

VOL. II. D 



34 Biblical Criticism. 

The entire problem can only be solved by a thorough investigation 
of the historical books, especially the Chronicles. In the latter there 
are unquestionable corruptions. Yet when we find the oldest ver- 
sions presenting the same text, we see that it reaches up to the close 
of the canon. And then it is quite true, as Keil remarks 1 , that these 
corruptions are not so numerous as critics of Cappellus's school assert; 
and also that many of them, particularly in the genealogies of the 
Chronicles, proceed from the defectiveness and corruption of the old 
documents used by the Chronicle writer. Hence they cannot be 
charged either to the account of transcribers or to the author. They 
are no proofs of injurious tampering with the text, of carelessness on 
the part of copyists, of arbitrary intercalation of it. Rather are they 
evidences of honesty on the part of the compiler of Chronicles. 

We believe too, that the persons who collected the books and 
compiled the canon acted most conscientiously. This may be fairly 
deduced from the fact that they took into the collection different 
recensions of separate portions of Scripture just as they were, with- 
out change, as Psal. xiv. and liii. ; Psal. xl. 14 — 18. and lxx. ; 
Psal. xviii. and 2 Sam. xxii.; Psal. cviii., Psal. lvii. 8 — 12., and 
lx. 7 — 14. ; Psal. cv. and 1 Chron. xvi. 8 — 22. ; Psal. xcvi. and 1 
Chron. xvi. 23 — 33. Neither did they alter parallel passages in 
different books, notwithstanding the variations and apparent or real 
discrepancies found in them, but adopted them in the state they got 
them, though in both cases it would have been easy to have availed 
themselves of expedients for harmonising inconsistencies; such as the 
parallels between the books of Samuel and Kings on the one hand, 
and Chronicles on the other; Isa. xxxvii. and xxxviii. with 2 
Kings xviii. xix. ; Jer. lii. with 2 Kings xxiv. 18. — xxv. 30. 

The entire question properly belongs to a history of the canon, 
which has still to be written." It involves most delicate and difficult 
points. 

One of the most important phenomena in this part of the history 
is the origin of that form of the text which appears in the Samari- 
tan MSS. of the Pentateuch, and is allied to the LXX. 

The Samaritans were a race made up of a remnant of the ten 
tribes and Assyrian colonists. They were therefore of mixed origin, 
the predominating element being Gentile or heathen, since only 
a few of the poor inhabitants had been left in the kingdom of Israel, 
when the great bulk of the people were carried away into captivity. 
We do not believe that they were simply and solely of heathen 
origin, as has been maintained by Hengstenberg 2 and others. 

As to the origin of the Samaritan Pentateuch, or the time when 
the Samaritans first got a copy of the law, opinions have been divided. 

1. Some think that as the Pentateuch existed before the sepa- 
ration of the tribes under Pehoboam, and still continued in the king- 
dom of Israel, the Samaritans had it from the first. Copies existed 
among the remnant of the ten tribes not carried away. So Kenni- 
cott, Eichhorn, Jahn, Bertholdt, Steudel, and others conjectured. 

2. Others think that the Israelite priest, afterwards sent by Esar- 
1 Einleitung, p. 659. 2 Die Authentie des Pentateuches, vol. i. p. 39. et scqq. 



History of the Text. 35 

haddon to Israel, took a copy of the Pentateuch with him, to teach 
the people out of it. So S. Morin, Le Clerc, and Poncet. 

3. Another view is, that they first became acquainted with it 
under Josiah. This is the view of Herbst. 

4. A fourth view is, that the Samaritan Pentateuch was the pro- 
duction of an impostor named Dositheus, the founder of a sect among 
the Samaritans who pretended to be the Messiah. So Ussher thought. 

5. A fifth is, that the origin of the Samaritan Pentateuch is coeval 
with the building of the Samaritan temple on Gerizim and the found- 
ing of an independent sect. Hence to Manasseh and other Jewish 
priests is assigned the introduction of the copy among them. So 
Simon, Prideaux, Hasse, De Wette, Gesenius, Hupfeld, Hengsten- 
berg, Keil, and others. 

The first and last of these hypotheses have been most adopted. In 
late times, the last seems to have acquired the mastery. And when 
the two are balanced against each other, as they usually are, any 
intermediate hypothesis being disregarded or unseen, the arguments 
certainly He on the side of the last. 

The three leading arguments for the first have always been the 
national hatred existing between the Jews and the Samaritans after 
the return of the former from captivity, excluding all idea of the 
reception of the Jewish law-book on the part of the Samaritans ; the 
fact, that the Samaritans have no more than the Pentateuch; and 
the preservation of the old Hebrew character in the Samaritan 
Pentateuch. None of these proofs is invulnerable, as Hengsten- 
berg has shown. The mutual animosity existing between the 
Jews and Samaritans does not date from the separation of the tribes 
under Rehoboam, and was not inherited from the ten tribes or 
Israelites by the mixed sect called Samaritans. It arose from the 
refusal of the Jews to recognise the claim of the Samaritans to belong 
to the people of God, and to take part as such in the rebuilding of 
the temple under Zerubbabel. The Samaritans always endeavoured 
to conform as closely as possible to the Jews, in their religion and 
mode of worship. The fact that the Samaritans have no more sacred 
books than the law of Moses, is satisfactorily explained by its suffi- 
ciency for their purpose, without Jewish history ; and the old 
Hebrew character preserved in their Pentateuch shows, that the 
opinion of its being changed in the time of Ezra is unfounded. We 
know that the character did not cease till long after the captivity, 
having been still used on the Maccabean coins. 

But on the other hand, the two leading arguments advanced on 
behalf of the last view, viz. that the origin of the Samaritan Penta- 
teuch was contemporary with the building of the Samaritan temple, 
are by no means invulnerable. These are the later composition and 
collection of the Pentateuch into one whole ; together with the 
religious state of the ten tribes and of the Samaritans till the temple 
was built on Gerizim. As to the former, it would take up too much 
space to combat it. To bring down the Pentateuch to a compara- 
tively recent period is easy ; but to prove the assumption is difficult. 
"We cannot assent to that view which fixes the origin of its present 



38 Biblical Criticism. 

state about the time of the exile. x Nor can we see anything in the 
state of religion among the ten tribes and Samaritans to justify the 
supposition that they had no written rule for divine worship. How 
easily and readily the law was violated, forgotten in the times before 
Josiah — how many national religious rites were neglected — how 
ignorant the people were — how idolatrously disposed — we learn 
even from the Old Testament history. Nor has Keil at all improved 
the reasons adduced by Gesenius and De Wette for the late origin of 
the Samaritan Pentateuch ; though he has followed in the wake of 
Hengstenberg. Objecting, as he does, to those adduced by the two 
eminent scholars just named, he has furnished nothing better. He 
thinks that the incipient religious state of the Samaritans till they 
received an Israelitish priest through Esarhaddon, the circumstance 
that this Pentateuch agrees in many readings with the Septuagint 
version, and the later text-corruption of the Hellenists generally, 
show that the Pentateuch of the sect did not originate earlier ttun 
the going over of Manasseh and other Jewish priests to the Sama- 
ritans. 2 Such reasoning seems to us very weak and inconclusive. 

We adopt the opinion, that the Israelites, and their motley off- 
spring the Samaritans, first became acquainted with the Pentateuch 
under Josiah. 3 

After having long lain buried in obscurity, this copy of the Penta- 
teuch was brought to light in the seventeenth century, and printed 
for the first time in the Paris Polyglott, by Morin. It was thence 
reprinted in the London Polyglott, in a more correct form. The only 
separate edition of it is in Hebrew characters, published by Blayney 
at Oxford in 1790, 8vo. 

Its importance in Hebrew criticism has often been overrated. It 
was so by Kennicott, Geddes, De Rossi, Bertholdt, and others. But 
a fundamental and masterly examination of it undertaken by Gese- 
nius 4 , dissipated the excessive notions of its value. Its credit and 
worth in criticism were virtually ruined from that time. Even the 
more sober opinion of it entertained by such men as Simon, Walton, 
Le Clerc, Michaelis, Eichhorn, and Jahn, viz. that though its text 
was very inferior on the whole to the Hebrew one, not a few readings 
preferable to the Masoretic were to be found in it, had to be aban- 
doned. 

Gesenius has divided the various readings exhibited by the Sama- 
ritan Pentateuch into eight classes : — 

1. Corrections merely of a grammatical nature. 

2. Glosses received into the text. 

3. Plain modes of expression substituted in the room of those 
which seemed difficult or obscure in the Hebrew text. 

4. Readings in which the Samaritan copy is corrected from 
parallel passages, or apparent defects supplied by means of them. 

1 See an elaborate refutation in the American Biblical Kepository for 1832, p. 689. et 
seqq., by Prof. Stuart. 

2 Einleitung, p. 663. 

8 See Davidson's Biblical Crit., vol. i. p. 97. et seqq. 

4 De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine, indole, et auctoritate, Halae, 1815, 4to. 



History of the Text. 37 

5. Additions or repetitions respecting things said and done. 

6. Corrections made to remove what was offensive in regard to 
sentiment. 

7. Places in which the pure Hebrew idiom is exchanged for that 
of the Samaritan. 

8. Alterations made to produce conformity to the Samaritan 
theology, worship, or mode of interpretation. 

9. A ninth class is necessary to complete the account, consisting 
of additions to the Hebrew text. One or more words are appended. 
Examples are presented in Gen. xxiii. 2., xxvii. 27.; Exod. v. 13., 
xxxii. 32.; Levit. viii. 31. Such additions are copied from the LXX., 
and badly rendered into Hebrew or Samaritan. That these flowed 
from the LXX. is confirmed by several passages where the Samaritan 
changes words of the Hebrew conformably to the LXX., as Gen. xxx. 
40., xlvii. 21., xlix. 22. Compare also the large additions, Exod. xxii. 
4.; Levit. xv. 3., xvii. 3. 4. ! 

Numbers of examples are given by Gesenius under each of the 
eight heads, amply corroborating the statements. Only four readings 
in the Samaritan are thought by him to be preferable to the Hebrew 
ones, viz. in Gen. iv. 8., xxii. 13., xlix. 14., xiv. 14. Even these, how- 
ever, are reckoned by many inferior to the Hebrew. The most mate- 
rial variations between the two copies occur in the prolongation of the 
patriarchal genealogies, Gen. v. xi. ; and in the alteration of Ebal 
into Gerizim, Deut. xxvii. 4. Dr. Hales has undertaken to vindi- 
cate the chronology of the Samaritan Pentateuch, very unsuccessfully 
as we think ; and Kennicott's attempt to charge the corruption in 
Deut. xxvii. 4. on the Jews, as though they altered Gerizim into 
Ebal, is vain. Let no rash critic therefore attempt to correct the 
Hebrew text by the Samaritan. In the case of the four places re- 
ferred to by Gesenius, he may hesitate ; but in all others he must 
discard the use of the Samaritan as an authority. 

The agreement of the Samaritan with the Septuagint text has always 
been observed. It is said that they harmonise in more than a thousand 
places where they differ from the Hebrew. More however has been 
deduced from this agreement than it will fairly justify. Too great im- 
portance has been attached to it. The LXX. agrees with the Hebrew 
against the Samaritan in many more places than it agrees with the 
Samaritan against the Hebrew. Hence little can be built upon the 
phenomenon in question. 

The Septuagint version of the Old Testament teaches little that is 
probable or definite respecting the text which lies at the basis of it. 
Nothing valuable can be deduced from it towards a knowledge of the 
Hebrew at the time it was made, till its own text be restored. Till 
later insertions and corruptions of the Greek be distinguished from 
the veritable rendering of the Hebrew then lying before the eyes of 
the interpreters, little can be done to aid our perception of the state 
of the original in their clay and country. We fear, however, that it 
is well nigh impossible to restore the Septuagint text to its original 

1 See Frankel, liber den Einfluss der Palastin. Exegese auf die Alexandrinische 
Hermeneutik, pp. 338, 339. 

D 3 



38 Biblical Criticism. 

purity. Taking it in the best condition we can have it, and judging 
of the original Hebrew whence it was taken, we should not believe 
that a peculiar critical recension of the Hebrew text is shown by it, as 
some have supposed. l This may perhaps be the case with Jeremiah, 
where the differences between the Greek and Hebrew are extensive 
and peculiar. But we cannot think that a critical recension of the 
original lay at the basis of it generally. Even in the books of Samuel, 
where Thenius discovers a much better text than the Masoretic, 
we dissent. Its numerous and considerable departures from the 
Masoretic text, as far as they are original, we attribute to the 
translators themselves, who altered arbitrarily and uncritically, 
so as to get easier readings ; omitted, added, displaced what they 
thought unsuitable or erroneous on historical, chronological, or doc- 
trinal grounds ; misunderstood the sense from want of thorough 
knowledge of the language ; and translated vaguely according to 
their conjectures. How arbitrarily they proceeded Frankel has shown 
by a minute examination of the Pentateuch in particular. 

"We think it very probable, however, that the Hebrew text then 
current in Egypt had suffered considerably. Alexandrine Judaism 
was not attached so superstitiously to the letter of Scripture as to 
watch over the words with the scrupulousness of the Palestinian 
Jews. It was freer and more speculative. Hence it is likely that 
the Hebrew MSS. in Egypt, from which the version was made, had 
been written somewhat carelessly and incorrectly. If this be so, the 
translators are so much the less to blame for their departures from 
the Masoretic text. 

While the Jews at Alexandria and the Samaritans had thus 
shown no special regard for the preservation of textual purity, but 
on the contrary treated the books in an arbitrary way, there is 
reason for believing that the Jews in Palestine and Babylon were 
more careful. The latter preserved the text from a fluctuating, unset- 
tled state. In their hands it became fixed and definite. About the 
time of and a little before Christ, it was very near to the present 
Masoretic text, judging from the versions of Jonathan and Onkelos. 
In like manner, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, deviate much 
less from our present text than the LXX. 

Shortly before and at the time of Christ, flourished in Jerusalem 
those Jewish schools or academies, presided over by Hillel, who had 
come from Babylon, and Shammai. After the destruction of the 
metropolis, similar ones were formed in Jabne, Ziphoria, Lydda, 
Cassarea, and Tiberias. At a later period, the academies of Sora, 
Pumpeditha, Nahardea, near the Euphrates, were celebrated. Though 
the time of those who belonged to these schools was largely occupied 
with oral traditions, yet it cannot be doubted that they also attended 
to the study of the Old Hebrew documents, their language, text, and 
interpretation, inasmuch as those traditions were connected with the 
Scriptures. From Origen's Hexapla, we see that he employed a copy 
similar to the Masoretic recension. In the fourth century, Jerome 

1 L. Cappellus, J. Morinus, Houbigant, Dr. II. Owen, Movers, Thenius, and others. 



History of the Text. 39 

was instructed in Hebrew by Palestinian Jews, and used their MSS. 
Hence his translation of the Bible agrees with the present recension. 
As yet there were no vowel-points or diacritic signs. 

The Mishna and both Gemaras presuppose a settled text, but not 
perhaps so fixed that the Talmudists refrained from altering any- 
thing in it. They sought, however, to make it generally unchange- 
able for all succeeding times by prescriptions respecting biblical 
calligraphy. The Talmud mentions comparison of MSS., and, as 
appears most likely, in connexion with the critical revision of a text 
having various readings. But Keil explains the case very differently. 1 
The numbering of verses, words, and letters is also spoken of as a 
task of the ^r 110 , sopherim, scribes. 

1. The B^DID "i-lEj^ rejection of the scribes, refers to five places in 
which the reader is directed to reject l, viz. Gen. xviii. 5., xxiv. 55. ; 
Numb. xii. 14. ; Psal. lxviii. 26., xxxvi. 7. The opposite of this 
is D^SID N ^i?*? 5 lectio scribarum, or reading of the scribes. 

2. Extraordinary points in fifteen words, placed over one, more, or 
all the letters ; Gen. xvi. 5., xviii. 9., xix. 33., xxxiii. 4., xxxvii. 12. ; 
Numb. iii. 39., ix. 10., xxi. 30., xxix. 15. ; 2 Sam. xix. 20. ; Isa. 
xliv. 9. ; Ezek. xli. 20., xlvi. 22.; Psal. xxvii. 13. 2 

3. 2,, ?9 K ". HPj tiri v'lo c'thib, referring to something not in the 
text, but which ought to be read, in seven places, 2 Sam. viii. 3., 
xvi. 23. ; Jer. xxxi. 38., 1. 29.; Ruth ii. 11., iii. 5. 17. 3 

4. '''P. N?1 ^J??, c'thib v'lo k'rij referring to something in the text, 
which should not be read, in five places, 2 Kings v. 18. ; Deut. vi. 1.; 
Jer. Ii. 3. ; Ezek. xlviii. 16. ; Ruth iii. 12. 

5. Sometimes the Talmud also mentions different readings, as 
on Job xiii. 15. ; Hag. i. 8. These are called by the Masoretes 
2™ n^ Kri uc'thib. 

6. The distinction between X"ipo and mDO, mikra and masoreth, also 
occurs. mDO 1 ? DX B>», snpob DN W : There is ground for the traditional 
reading ; there is ground for the textual reading. 

7. p *6x p X~ipn ha. Bead not so, but so. 

Much difference of opinion exists respecting the proper meaning 
and application of these technical words and phrases. On the one 
hand it has been held, that they refer to actual variations in the text, 
and critical corrections ; on the other, that they are of a hermeneutical 
nature. The most strenuous supporter of the latter hypothesis is 
Keil, who maintains that the text was never doubtful to the Tal- 
mudists, but that it was already so firmly settled in tradition that the 
true reading constantly agrees with the modern one. 4 In so doing, 
we believe that he has extended several explanations offered by 
Hupfeld, to a greater length than the latter scholar approves of. 5 
We agree with Hupfeld, that Nos. 6. and 7. do not refer to critical 
emendations, but to canonical or ecclesiastically-established, and apo- 
cryphal readings (No. 6.), and a sort of play on words in the text or 
a turning of them into some other application (No. 7.). But we 

1 Enleitung, p. 666. 2 Cappelli, Critica Sacra ed. Vogel, vol. i. p. 443. et seqq. 

3 Nedarim, fol. 37. cap. 2. See Buxtorfs Tiberias, p. 40. etseqq. 

4 Einleitung, pp. 667, 668. 5 Beleuchtung, u. s. w.,p. 62. etseqq. 



40 Biblical Criticism. 

demur to the explanations of Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5 V given or sanctioned by 
Keil, and regard the expressions as vestiges of critical corrections in 
the biblical text, made by the Scribes or onato before the Tal- 
mudic time. 

No. 2. relates to the extraordinary points. The Tract Sopherim 
mentions six such places, though the Masorah speaks of fifteen. It 
would seem that they were originally intended to show the spurious- 
ness of words or letters. 1 The Talmud also speaks of the unusual 
letters, i, e, litterce majuscules, minuscula, inverses et suspenses. It 
appears that they had at first a critical import; but in the time of 
the Talmud they were applied allegoricaUy. 

On the whole, the text was well settled during the Talmudic pe- 
riod, and generally agreed with the Masoretic. But various readings 
were not unknown. The Talmudists and their predecessors had 
critically attended to the text, and occasionally suggested better 
readings. They had different MSS., and on conrparing them found 
several discrepancies respecting which they gave an opinion. 

After the Talmud was completed, at the close of the fifth century, 
a new period in the history of the text, termed the Masoretic, began. 
We have seen that the Talmudists were generally satisfied with the 
text as they had received it from generation to generation ; though 
they unquestionably contributed to give more fixedness to it in suc- 
cessive centuries. Their chief attention, however, was directed to 
questions of juridical theology and allegorical interpretations, for 
which great scope was furnished by an unpointed text. Learned 
Jews continued to study the sacred books, pursuing like investigations 
to their predecessors. The schools in Palestine, especially that at 
Tiberias, now took the lead. Brought into connexion with the 
Syrians and Arabians, they were stirred up to do for their own 
language something like what their active neighbours were effecting 
for their respective dialects and literature. In consequence of the 
increasing number of traditional definitions and precepts, it was felt 
desirable, if not necessary, to reduce them to writing, and to fix the 
pronunciation in the same manner by vowel-points and accents. As 
the mode of reading the biblical text had been established by oral 
tradition in the schools and synagogues, it became needful to repre- 
sent it if possible by written marks. What was thus written, the 
body of traditional remarks received from their fathers, augmented 
by their own observations, as well as the traditional pronunciation 
represented by a system of signs, is called the Masorah, rnbD, i.e. 
tradition. It may be readily supposed, that the matters committed 
to writing were multifarious. They all related to the text, not 
to such questions of juridical theology and allegorical interpreta- 
tion as are discussed in the Talmud. They were critical rather 
than hermeneutical. The Masoretes wrote down what had been 
orally perpetuated for a long period; from Ezra's time, as the 
Jews say. The materials which had accumulated in the course of 
centuries, they committed to writing, securing at the same time the 
traditional interpretation of the text by a vowel-system partly bor- 
1 Buxtorf s Tiberias, p. 1 73. e.i seqq. 



History of the Text. 41 

rowed and partly framed by themselves. But they also enlarged the 
mass of traditional regulations and observations they had received 
from their predecessors, by numerous remarks of their own, critical, 
orthographical, grammatical, and exegetical. They did not make a 
critical recension or revision of the text. They had got the text in a 
fixed state. It had been already established by the usage of centuries. 
But they made a number of corrections on it, which, along with 
others of the same kind handed down to them, they intended to 
accompany the textus receptus. 

In adopting and enlarging the critical remarks contained in the 
Talmud, we find in the Masorah EnsiD j-ipj-i correctio scribarum in 
eighteen passages of Scripture, i. e. emendations in the text. Of the 
words to which 2, 0p '**?] , ~i£ is affixed, only seven are given in the 
Talmud, whereas there are thirteen in the Masorah. 

As to the remarks of the Masoretes distinguished by the phrase 
nroi '>"\p } rea d anc l written, they are critical, including a different divi- 
sion of words, a transposition of letters, or a change in them, the 
supplying or omitting of a consonant ; grammatical, exegetical, ortho- 
graphical, glossarial, euphemistic. 

The sources of these k'ris some have assumed to be tradition and 
the comparison of MSS., as Kimchi, Buxtorf, Kennicott, &c. ; 
others, the decided opinion of the Masoretes themselves, as Loes- 
cher, Pfaff, &c. ; but others more correctly assume both, as Cappellus 
and "Walton. 

Distinct from these are the proper conjectures, P^P, s^birin, of the 
Masoretes on difficult words, exegetical, orthographical, and gram- 
matical. 

They also numbered the verses, words, and letters of every book ; 
pointed out the middle word and letter of each; counted verses 
Avhich contained all the letters of the alphabet or a certain number 
only, &C. 1 

Thus this work contains a great mass of observations, multiform 
and various in their nature. It is a vast critical and exegetical 
storehouse, to which different sources and times contributed, per- 
vaded by the one object of preserving the integrity of the original 
text, as well as the right reading and apprehension of it, for all times. 

The Masorah was written at first in distinct books by itself. But it 
was afterwards transferred to the margin -of MSS., a practice that 
gave rise to great confusion. Arbitrary abbreviations and omissions, 
often arising from want of space, and the frequent appending of new 
observations, involved it in inextricable perplexity. The great and 
little Masorah are distinguished by the greater or less compass of 
the observations included in them. The one is a curtailment of the 
other. According to the place it occupies, the great Masorah is called 
fnalis, placed at the end of books ; or textualis, by the side of the 
text. 

The great Masorah was first printed in the large Babbinical Bibles 
of Bomberg and Buxtorf ; the little Masorah is printed, more or less 
complete, in all Hebrew Bibles. 

1 See De Wette, Einleit. § 91. pp. 137, 138, 139. 



42 Biblical Criticism. 

The value of the Masorah has been differently estimated. Those 
who are best acquainted with the work look upon it as contributing 
much to the purity of the text. Trifling as are some parts of it, 
others are well worthy of attention as having largely and beneficially 
influenced both the integrity and correctness of the sacred writings. 
The complete vocalisation of the text, as well as its accentuation, 
had now been completed. The c'thibs and Kris had been distin- 
guished and settled by the labours of the Masoretes. From this 
time forward it was the business of Jewish as well as Christian 
scholars to provide for faithful transcripts, and to prevent corruption 
in the text now firmly established, by comparing MSS. and collecting 
various readings. 

At the end of Bomberg's second Rabbinical Bible, edited by R. 
Jacob ben Chayim, is printed a list of various readings belonging to 
the eastern or Babylonian, and the western or Palestinian, JeAvs. 
They amount to 216 — 220. All relate merely to the consonants, 
except two about He Mappik. Hence the comparison of the MSS. 
whence they were derived is placed anterior to the introduction of 
the vowel-points. The particulars referred to are minute ones, fre- 
quently Kris and c'thibs. Their author and age are alike unknown. 
Probably they belong to the seventh century ; but Morin assumes the 
eighth. None of them relates to the Pentateuch, because, as Bux- 
torf thinks, there was no difference there. Our western MSS. do 
not always confirm these readings. Walton has reprinted them in 
the sixth volume of the London Polyglott. 

In the eleventh century, R. Aaron ben Asher, a Palestinian, and 
R. Jacob ben Naphtali, a Babylonian Jew, made a collation of east- 
ern and western MSS. The various readings in this list relate solely 
to vowels and accents, whence it is concluded that the vowel-system 
had been already completed, and unpointed MSS. had fallen into 
disuse. One exception, not relating to vowels or accents, is on Can- 
ticles viii. 6., where ben Naphtali divides a word into two. This list, 
containing upwards of 864 variations, is printed in the Rabbinical 
Bibles of Bomberg and Buxtorf, as well as the London Polyglott. 
The western Jews, and therefore our printed editions, commonly 
follow ben Asher. 

From this period onward, to which belong most of our existing 
Hebrew MSS., the text remained substantially the Masoretic one. 
MSS. were mostly conformed to the Masorah. It may be safely 
affirmed that no important alterations were introduced into the 
received text, though many various readings existed during the time 
we speak of, as is proved, by Kennicott. When R. Meir Hallevi 
(a.d. 1250) complains of the corruption of MSS., he refers chiefly to 
the scriptio plena and defectiva. Eichhorn thinks that MSS. were 
altered after the Targums, and according to the principles of grammar, 
which were now studied with great zeal 1 ; but this idea is rejected by 
Jahn 2 and De Wette. 3 The recognised authority of the Masorah 

1 Einleitung, vol. i. pp. 372, 373. 

2 Einleitung in die gottlichen Biiclier des alten Bundes, vol. i. pp. 400, 401. second 
edition. 

9 Einleitung, pp. 140, 141. 



History of the printed Text. 43 

would scarcely have permitted such license. On the other hand, 
Kennicott thinks that the Targums were altered after the Hebrew 
text. 1 This is more likely, though we confess that there is little evi- 
dence in favour of the statement. 2 

In transcribing MSS., the Rabbins of the middle ages adopted 
certain old and celebrated exemplars highly valued for their accuracy 
as standard texts. These were : — 

1. The Codex of Hillel, mentioned by Kimchi, R. Moses Nachma- 
nides, R. Elias Levita, R. Menahem de Lonzano, and R. Zacut. 
We do not know who Hillel was. Perhaps R. Simon 3 is right in 
suspecting him to have been a Spanish Jew, the rector of some 
academy, who corrected the Masoretic recension in several places, 
after ancient copies. It would appear that the Codex Hillel was 
furnished with the vowel-points. 

2. Codex JEgyptius, or Ben Asher, also the Palestinian or Jeru- 
salem codex. This was a copy corrected by Ben Asher, and called 
by different names, according to the places where it was kept. 

3. Codex Babylonius, or Ben Naphtali. This was a copy corrected 
by Ben Naphtali, highly esteemed by the Babylonian Jews. 

4. Codex Sinaiticus, mentioned by Elias Levita, a copy of the Pen- 
tateuch proceeding from an unknown author, distinguished by some 
diversity in the accents. 

5. The Codex of Jericho, a copy of the law, also mentioned by 
Elias Levita, brought from Jericho. In it the writing of the full 
and defective words is the chief point noticeable. 

6. The Book of Spain, quoted by Elias, means all the MSS. 
written in that country, which were more highly esteemed than 
others. 

7. The Codex Sanbouki is mentioned by R. Menahem. What is 
meant by it, is unknown. 4 



CHAP. IX. 

HISTORY OF THE PKIXTED TEXT. 

The form of the early printed editions of the Hebrew Bible 
resembles very much that of MSS. They are without titles at the 
commencement, have appendices, are printed^ on parchment with 
broad margin, and large ill-shaped type, the initial letters being 
commonly ornamented either with wood-cut engravings or the pen. 
These letters, however, are often absent. With vowels the editions 
in question are very imperfectly supplied. Separate parts of the 
Bible were first printed. The Psalms appeared (at Bologna, proba- 
bly) in 1477 ; the Pentateuch at Bologna, in 1482 ; the earlier and 

1 Dissertation the second, on the date of the printed Hebrew text, p. 167. 

2 For the history of the imprinted text, see Davidson's Bib. Crit. vol. L chapters vi. 
vii. viii. ix. ; and the article Bibeltext des A. T. in Hcrzog's Encyclopaedic, by Dillmann. 

3 Disquisitioncs Criticse de varus bibl. editt. cap. 3. 

* See Wolfii Bibliotheca Hebnea, vol. ii. sect. 2. p. 289. et seqq. 



44 Biblical Criticism. 

later prophets, in 1486; the Megilloth, 1482 and 1486; and the 
Hagiographa 1487; almost all with the Rabbinical comments of 
Kimchi or Rashi. 

I. The first edition of the entire Hebrew Bible from MSS. 
appeared at Soncino, 1488, small folio, which was closely followed 
by the edition of Brescia, 1494, 4to. To this first recension belong 
the Rabbinical Bible of Bomberg, 1517, 1518, edited by Felix Pra- 
tensis ; the smaller editions of 1518, 1521 ; that of Sebastian 
Minister, published at Basel, 1536, 4to., and that of R. Stephens, 
1539—1544. 

II. The Complutensian Bible contained in the Complutensian 
Polyglott, 1514 — 1517, was derived from MSS., and has therefore 
an independent and peculiar text. 

III. A new recension of the text after the Masorah is presented by 
the second edition of Bomberg's Rabbinical Bible, edited by R. Jacob 
ben Chayim, Venice, 1525, 1526, 4 vols, folio. Most others have 
followed this. 

IV. A text compounded of the two last is contained in the Ant- 
werp Polyglott, 1569—1572, 8 vols, folio. 

V. The edition of Elias Hutter, 1587, folio, Hamburg, and in his 
unfinished Polyglott, 1591, folio, Niirnberg, was formed from several 
older editions. 

VI. A text revised after the Masorah, and therefore differing here 
and there from earlier editions, was given by Buxtorf in his smaller 
edition of 1611, Basel, 8vo., and in his large Rabbinical Bible, 1618, 
1619, 4 vols, folio. 

VII. The text of the older editions corrected by two MSS. is 
given in the edition of Jos. Athias, with a preface by Leusden, 
Amsterdam, 1661, and also 1667, 8vo. This was followed in most 
later editions, and through Van der Hooght's (Amsterdam, 1705, 8vo.) 
became the textus receptus. 

We come now to speak of editions with a critical apparatus : — 

The great Masorah and various readings are given in the Rabbinical 
Bibles of Bomberg and Buxtorf; while variations are given in the 
editions of Sebastian Minister (Basel, 1536, 2 vols.) ; of Van der 
Hooght; of J. H. Michaelis (1720, Halae, 4to. and 8vo.); in the 
edition of Mantua (1742 — 1744, 4 vols. 4to.) with the critical com- 
mentary of Jedid. Salom. Norzi ; in that of C. F. Houbigant (1753, 
4 vols. fol. Paris); in that of Benjamin Kennicott (2 vols. fol. Oxford, 
1776, 1780) ; of Doederlein and Meisner (Leipzig, 1793, 8vo.); Jahn 
(4 vols. 8vo. Vienna, 1806); and Boothroyd (18 10—1816, 2 vols. 4to.) 

Collections of various readings alone were published by R. Meir 
Hallevi (Florence, 1750, small fol.); by R. Menahem de Lonzano 
(rnin niK Venice, 1618); and by J. Bern, de Rossi (Parma, 1784— 
1788, 4 vols. 4to.); and another supplementary volume (1798). l 

The result of all the collations of Hebrew MSS. which have been 
instituted, is the confirmation of the text lying at the basis of the 
Masorah. All known codices exhibit substantially that text. The 

1 For the history of the printed text, see Masch's edition of Le Long Bibliotheca Sacra, 
part i. ; De "Wette's Einleit. §§ 95, 96. ; and Davidson's Bib. Crit. vol. i. chapter x. 






History of the printed Text. 45 

oldest versions which adhere most to the original had neany the 
same text. Little alteration has been made in it since settled by the 
Masoretes ; and the earliest Targums show that about the time of 
Christ it was essentially what it afterwards appeared in the Masoretic 
period. When we try to go up further to the time when the canon 
Avas completed, and onward to the return of the Jews from exile, in 
search of what the primitive text then was, Ave cannot conceiA r e of it 
as dhTering much from its present condition. The Jews after the 
exile were \ r ery careful in preserving it. They guarded it against 
corruption Avith watchful jealousy. Everything conspires to sIioav 
that we haA r e the original now in a correct state. The genuine text 
has been handed down with purity. This is eAadent from the fact, 
that the characteristic peculiarities of the A^arious writers are retained; 
and that separate pieces, out of which books have been made up, may 
be traced by distinctiA T e mai'ks. 

In the seventeenth century, the controversy respecting the integrity 
of the Hebrew text gave rise to many publications. The opponents 
of its absolute integrity pushed their opinions to an extreme in exag- 
gerating the supposed corruption of the Masoretic text, in OA r eiwaluing 
the critical importance of ancient versions and the Samaritan Penta- 
teuch, and in applying critical conjecture. Jos. Vossius, Winston, 
John Morin, L. Cappell and others, fell into this error. And though 
their successors R. Simon, Kennicott, and De Rossi were more 
moderate, they Avere not Avholly free from blame, while Houbigant 
was most extravagant in his procedure. The old Protestant party — 
the defenders of the integrity of the text — though substantially right, 
went too far in the opposite direction. While admitting a feAV trifling 
mistakes in Hebrew MSS. and editions of the Bible, they would not 
alloAV of any real error, even the smallest, in a text resulting from 
comparison of all critical evidence. And then they extended the 
absolute integrity of the text to the vowel-points. Buxtorf the son, 
Arnold Bootius, Wasmuth, Loescher, Carpzov, Glassius, and others, 
stood on this extreme ground. 

The collations of Kennicott and De Rossi in the eighteenth cen- 
tury showed that no material A'ariation has been made in the text, as 
far as we can discover by the aid of all critical appliances. It con- 
firmed the old Protestant idea, that the text has been carefully pre- 
served and faithfully transmitted by the Masoretes. No important or 
extensive help has been furnished by such copious collations of MSS. 
towards changing the text. They affect it only in a small degree. 
The variations in MSS. influence the sense or meaning of the text 
A*ery slightly. The same remark applies to ancient versions. We 
cannot hope to get from them anything that will materially alter the 
Masoretic text. As to conjectural criticism, we must apply it in 
some cases ; but not so often as Hitzig or even Ewald assumes. To 
resort to it frequently is unnecessary and unauthorised. Wherever 
the text is hopelessly inexplicable or glaringly inconsistent, there and 
there only would we have recourse to it. 



46 Biblical Criticism. 

CHAP. X. 

SOURCES OF CRITICISM. 

Having shown the existence of various readings in the original text 
of the Bible, and followed the history of the text itself through 
various phases and periods till the present time, criticism has next to 
point out the means of restoring it. There are resources by which it 
may be brought back as nearly as possible to its first condition. 
These sources of criticism are various. 

In arranging and dividing them various methods may be adopted. 
Thus Eichhorn marks first, the earliest period of the text, i.e. that 
which preceded the settlement and close of the canon. Secondly, 
the period of it reaching down to the completion of the Masoretic 
recension, i.e. the pre-Masoretic. Thirdly, the Masoretic text. 1 

First, in regard to the ante-canonical period, we know scarcely 
anything. The sources of rectifying the mistakes then made are 
said to be parallel places and alphabetical poems. But here we may 
easily fall into error. In our view Eichhorn has done so. On com- 
paring the numerous parallels in different books, or in the same one, 
and observing their variations, it is plainly seen either that the same 
author wrote the same piece twice, and not in exactly the same 
words ; or that the later writer generally intended more than a 
simple copying of the earlier. He expressed the same thing in a 
manner suited to his own purpose. When he altered, he did it him- 
self. The alteration is not therefore a thing for criticism to touch 
and correct. In respect to alphabetical poems, it is vain to make 
them alphabetically regular and orderly. Did the original writers 
always intend to follow, throughout a piece or poem, the method 
generally pursued in it ? We do not think so. Hence these poems 
cannot be safely used in the criticism of the text. 

With regard to the second state of the text, the pre-Masoretic, the 
following sources are enumerated for it, the ancient translators, (Philo 
and Josephus,) the fathers (Ephrem the Syrian) Origen and Jerome, 
the Talmud, and the Masorah itself. 

These distinctions of text-periods are practically useless to us at 
the present day. Only one form of text lies before us, the so-called 
Masoretic. Out of this our task is to educe as nearly as possible the 
primitive text. What then are the sources employed by criticism for 
judging of it? The following are the chief: — 

1. Ancient versions. 

2. MSS. 

3. Parallels. 

4. Quotations in the New Testament, the Masorah, the Talmud, 
and in Rabbinical writings. 

5. Critical conjecture. 

We shall first refer to ancient versions. These have been divided 
into immediate and mediate, the former denoting those made directly 

1 Einleitung, vol. i. p. 390. 



The Septuagint Translation. 47 

from the original ; the latter those made from another version. The 
latter s*erve properly and chiefly to correct the text of the version 
from which they were taken. It will not be necessary to do much 
more than mention the mediate. Of immediate versions, the most 
important are such as we shall now describe. 



CHAP. XI. 

THE SEPTUAGINT TRANSLATION. 



The Greek version of the Old Testament called the Septuagint, has 
received this name either from the account of seventy -two persons 
having been employed in making it ; or from its having been sanc- 
tioned by the Jewish Sanhedrim, which consisted of seventy or 
rather of seventy-two persons. It is the oldest and most important 
of all Bible versions, and has been the parent of many others. 

The history of it is veiled in obscurity. Hence various hypotheses 
have been proposed respecting its origin. 

The oldest account is, that it was made at the request and advice 
of Demetrius Phalereus, librarian of the great library at Alexandria, 
under Ptolemy Philadelphus. A general collection of laws had been 
made for the benefit of that national repository of literature ; and 
when it was found that the Jewish laws were wanting, the librarian 
naturally wished to have them also. Hence he set about the pro- 
curing of them. The king sent Andreas and Aristeas, two of his 
court, to Eleazar then high priest at Jerusalem, with a request that 
a copy of the Hebrew Scriptures might be granted to him, and with it 
seventy-two persons skilled in Hebrew and Greek to interpret it. In 
compliance with this desire on the part of the Egyptian king, seventy- 
two learned men, with a copy of the law, were sent to Egypt, shut 
up in an island, probably Pharos, where after mutual conference 
respecting the sense and expression, they dictated a version to Deme- 
trius. Such is the substance of a narrative written by Aristeas to his 
brother Philocrates, in a Greek epistle still extant. 1 

It is now generally admitted, that the letter of Aristeas is a for- 
gery. But it was made at an early period, since Josephus has 
repeated the substance of it. 2 Philo knew nothing of these fables of 
the pseudo- Aristeas, yet he has other Egyptian legends. He repre- 
sents the learned Jews who had been sent from Palestine to 
Ptolemy Philadelphus as executing in the island of Pharos each a 
separate version, and when all were compared they were found to 
agree so exactly in minute points, as to show that the men were 
inspired. But Philo does not specify the number of translators. 3 

Some time after, Justin Martyr endeavoured to force the different 
circumstances of the two accounts into agreement. He makes 

1 It is printed by Hody in his learned work De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, &c. 

2 Antiquit. lib. xii. cap. ii. 3 De vita Mosis, lib. ii. 



48 Biblical Criticism. 

seventy-two cells to have been built by the king for the seventy-twO 
interpreters, where they composed so many distinct versions, all 
agreeing with one another, and therefore inspired. 1 But in Justin's 
narrative much of Aristeas's is omitted, as the conference of the 
translators and the dictation of the translation. Epiphanius again 
distributes the good translators in thirty-six cells, two by two, and 
places in each a copyist to whom the version might be dictated. The 
result was thirty-six versions, all agreeing. 2 

The earliest writer who speaks of the version is Aristobulus, be- 
longing to the second century before Christ, in a fragment preserved 
by Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius. This fragment, however, 
is brief and obscure. It has even been regarded as spurious by 
Hody and Eichhorn. But Valckenaer 3 and Havernick 4 have vindi- 
cated its authenticity. One phrase in it is doubtful, viz., rwv 8ia 
tov vo/jlov, which may either mean the Pentateuch, or the entire Old 
Testament. Probably it means the former, not the latter as 
Valckenaer and Havernick suppose. Aristeas, Josephus, Philo, the 
Talmudists, speak only of the laio. But Justin Martyr, Clement of 
Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius, and others, speak of the 
entire Old Testament. 

It is unnecessary to present the proofs of the spuriousness of Aris- 
teas's letter at the present day. The principal is, that the author 
wishes to represent himself as a heathen, a worshipper of Zeus, and 
yet betrays his Jewish personality throughout. Hody demonstrated 
the fabulous character of the document so triumphantly that it soon 
found no defenders; and little has been since added to his proofs. 

It is difficult to ascertain what truth, if any, lies at the basis of the 
current story. How far is it to be looked upon as historical? Has 
it any historical basis? We are inclined to believe that it has a 
foundation in truth, though it may be impossible to separate the 
historical and unhistorical. 

The design of the pseudo- Aristeas was evidently to exalt the 
credit of the version. The original was brought from Jerusalem, the 
high priest consenting. The king of Egypt and his library are also 
magnified. It would seem, therefore, that some objections had been 
made to the version. It may have been urged against it that it was 
unauthorised, made by the command of a heathen king, and not from 
the sacred text preserved at Jerusalem. The writer could not deny 
the fact that it was made by command of the king of Egypt. But, 
instead of putting Ptolemy Lagi, a king very obnoxious to the Jews, 
he puts in his stead Ptolemy Philadelphus his son, who was favour- 
able to them. 

The version was made at the command of a king. The yearly 
festival instituted in memory of the event, and mentioned by Philo, 
confirms this supposition. Plutarch and JElian favour it. Aristo- 
bulus is on the side of it. So also is an old scholion on Plautus 
drawn by Tzetzes from the writings of Callimachus and Eratosthenes, 

1 Cohortat. ad Graecos. 2 De Ponderibus et mensuris. 

3 Diatribe de Aristobulo Judseo, p. 56. et seqq. 4 Einleit. i. 2. p. 39. et seqq. 



The Septuagint Translation. 49 

given by Wichelhaus 1 and Ritschl. 2 By command of the king, 
it was deposited in the royal library. We believe that king to 
have been Lagi, not Philadelphus. Irenasus, Theocloret, and others 
give Lagi ; though many make him Philadelphus the son. But 
the connection of Demetrius with Philadelphus as adviser, is very 
questionable. It has been inferred from a passage in Hermippus, 
that Demetrius Phalereus was banished by Ptolemy Philadelphus 
at the beginning of his reign. 3 One thing is certain, viz. that he 
never was librarian. In order to reconcile conflicting statements, 
Hody assumed that the version was made or begun during the two 
years in which Philadelphus reigned conjointly with his father Lagi, 
B.C. 286 — 285. But this supposition is unnecessary. 

If the view now given be correct, it follows that it did not ori- 
ginate in the religious necessities of the Jews in Egypt. The latter 
were in connection with the Palestinian brethren, and would scarcely 
have ventured to make it of themselves for the use of their syna- 
gogue or synagogues. But translators probably thought of its eccle- 
siastical use when the king ordered it to be made. The king's 
motive was apparently a political one ; but the translators had other 
thoughts. We cannot believe, with Havernick, that the intention 
which prompted it was a purely literary one. 

The Pentateuch was translated first, and afterwards the other books 
of the Old Testament ; but how long time elapsed between the com- 
mencement and completion of the entire translation cannot be deter- 
mined. It is commonly believed that the interval was not great, 
because the grandson of Jesus, son of Sirach, in his prologue is 
supposed to allude to the translation of the three parts of the Old 
Testament as existing in his time (131 B.C.). The inference, how- 
ever, is not firm. The version of the book of Esther is thought by 
many to have been made under Ptolemy Philometor (181 — 145 B.C.); 
and the tragic writer Ezekiel belonging to the second century B.C., 
is thought to have used the version. The dialect in which it is written 
is the Koivr) Scaks/cTos, that which prevailed after the time of Alex- 
ander the Great; and its Egyptian origin is clearly evinced by a 
variety of particulars in the version itself. There are Egyptian 
words and expressions, or such as refer to Egypt, betraying the 
origin of it, such as -^rovOoiKpav^y, altered a little from the Hebrew ; 
ays or ayst, Gen. xli. 2. 18.; ifiis, Lev. xi. 17. Other words 
given by Hody are invalid as proofs, such as Kovhv, apTajSri, fivaaos, 
d\j]6sca for D^SPl, iraaTo^opslov, <yiv£cris the title to the first book, 
&c. Besides, its internal character agrees well with an Egyptian 
source, not a Palestinian. The treatment of the text is somewhat 
arbitrary, unlike the precision and literality of the Palestinians who 
would not have ventured on such license and looseness. They would 
have been more anxious about the letter of the original. We see in 



1 De Jeremiad versione Alexandrina, p. 23. et seqq. 

2 Die Alexandrinischen Bibliotheken und die Sammlung der Homerischen Gedichte 
nach Anleitimg eines Plautmischen Scholiums. 

3 See Herbst's Einleitung, vol. i. p. 150. et seqq. 

VOL. II. E 



50 Biblical Criticism. 

it somewhat of the Alexandrine spirit accommodating Hebrew ideas 
to Hellenism. A few doctrinal and philosophical representations, 
characteristic of the later Alexandrine Judaism, may also be detected; 
though not so many as Daehne has attempted to show. 1 In short, 
there is more subjectivity and freedom in the treatment of the text 
than Palestinians would have exhibited — such latitude as is quite 
consonant with the speculative spirit of Alexandrine Judaism. In 
modern times, Frankel has denied the Alexandrine origin of the 
version, though he admits that the impulse which led to it went forth 
from Alexandria. But his arguments are few and weak. In going 
to Cyrene and other places in Africa for the origin of some books, 
he has surely indulged in mere hypotheses. 2 There is no good 
reason for denying Alexandria to be the birthplace of the Septuagint. 
No other place is so likely to have produced the translators. 

It is not easy to determine the number of translators. That there 
were several is apparent from the general character of the version. 
Not only are the same words and phrases variously rendered in 
different books, but the whole method of translation is diverse. 
There is a tradition in the Tract. Sopherim respecting five transla- 
tors ; but no weight can be attached to it. We have nothing but 
internal evidence as a guide in the matter ; and who knows not the 
uncertain nature of that criterion ? 

Many assume that the Pentateuch proceeded from one translator ; 
and there is a general character about it that favours the assumption. 
Not that differences in the translation of the separate books are 
wanting — there are perceptible varieties in them, some being better 
rendered than others. Frankel attributes them to different inter- 
preters covering a space of time between sixty and seventy years. 3 
With very minute investigation he has gone over all the Pentateuch, 
and thinks that fragmentary pieces of translation, explanations, and 
glosses, were interwoven with the version. Partial attempts at a 
Greek version had preceded, on the basis of which an entire transla- 
tion was formed. 4 There is some appearance of truth in this hy- 
pothesis, so far as it assumes that current interpretations and oral 
glosses on passages entered into the composition. But with all the 
heterogeneous phenomena which present themselves to the close ob- 
server, we greatly doubt whether the learned critic be right in his 
peculiar ideas respecting the basis of the entire version, and espe- 
cially respecting the Pentateuch. It is likely enough that the trans- 
lation of the Pentateuch did proceed from more persons than one ; 
but the attempt to divide parts and pieces of books, made by 
Frankel, is very arbitrary. 5 The translation of the Pentateuch is 
the best executed part of the whole. It is more literal and carefully 
done than the rest, not without a degree of elegance. But from this 
we must except Exod. xxxvi. 9., &c. &c. Leviticus is better ren- 

1 Geschichtliche Darstellung der Judisch-Alexandr. Keligionsphilos. vol. ii. p. 11. et seqq. 

2 Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, p. 38. et seqq. 

3 liber den Einfluss der Palastinischen Exegese, u. s. w., p. 231. 

4 Vorstudien, u. s. w., p. 20. 

5 See Thiersch, De Pentateuchi versione Alexandrina, p. 36. § 9. 



The Septuagint Translation. 51 

dered than any other book ; and next to it Deuteronomy. Numbers 
is the worst translated part. Hence each is supposed by Frankel 
to have proceeded from one person. That the same should be 
predicated of the others respectively, there is no valid reason 
for denying as far as we can perceive. Frankel's dismemberment of 
Genesis and Exodus has led him to adopt another view. But 
he has carried his microscopic anatomy too far; and in assuming 
between sixty and seventy years, i. e. between Philadelphus and 
Philopator, for the making of the Pentateuch version, we must 
dissent from him. 1 The translation of the historical books is much 
inferior. The men who had to do with them had less knowledge of 
Hebrew, and were consequently less able to do justice to the ori- 
ginal. Thenius however entertains a very favourable opinion of 
the translator of the books of Samuel, laying the blame of the Greek 
text, where it is manifestly incorrect and improper, on the caprice of 
transcribers and others. 2 In this respect few will agree with him. 
He exalts the version too much at the expense of the Masoretic text. 
The frequent pleonasm of sjco sI/ml, as in Judges v. 3., vi. 18., xi. 27. ; 
Ruth iv. 4. ; 2 Sam. xi. 5., xv. 28., xxiv. 12. ; 1 Kings ii. 2. ; 2 
Kings iv. 13., x. 9., is remarkable. The translator of Isaiah, who 
was very incompetent, must have been different from him who ren- 
dered the minor prophets, as will be seen from a comparison of Isaiah 
ii. 2 — 4. with Micah iv. 1 — 3.; and that the historical books were 
not translated by the interpreter of Isaiah, follows from Isaiah xxxvi 
— xxxix. compared with 2 Kings xviii. &c. 3 On the whole, the 
prophetic books are ill translated — in a manner destitute of spirit 
and poetic fire. In difficult passages they are generally rendered 
incorrectly. With regard to Jeremiah, the departures from the 
Hebrew are remarkable and extensive. How they are there to be 
explained is a most difficult problem. We cannot believe with 
YVichelhaus 4 , that the departures are to be ascribed entirely to the 
translator. Probably another recension lay at the basis of the ver- 
sion 5 — one not so full as the Masoretic. In the case of Daniel, the 
translator has so widely departed from the text, taking so many 
liberties with it, by omitting, abridging, adding, inserting, that the 
paraphrase was always rejected, and that of Theodotion introduced 
in its place, into the Greek Bibles. The book of Esther has been 
treated in a similar way to that of Daniel. Of the poetical books, 
Proverbs are best rendered. The Psalms have been translated in a 
slavish, literal method, without spirit or taste. Ecclesiastes is also 
ill rendered, the version often being unintelligible from its slavish 
literality. The translator of Job entirely omitted many difficult 
passages. 

1 See Tiber den Einflnss der Palastinischen Exegese, u. s. w. 

- Exegetiscnes Handbucb zum Alten Testament, vierte Lieferung, Einleitung, p. xxv. 
et seqq. 

3 See Gesenius, Comnientar liber den Iesaia, vol. i. p. 56. et seqq. 

* De Jeremise versione Alexandrina, p. 175. et seqq. 

5 See Movers, De utriusque recensionis Vaticiniorum Jeremiae, Gracse Alexandrine et 
Hebraicse Masorethicre, indole, u. s. w. 

E 2 



52 Biblical Criticism. 

The version, considered as a whole, is by no means good. With 
an aiming at laterality there is much arbitrary procedure, by virtue 
of which tropical expressions are changed, anthropomorphic resolved 
into unfigurative ones, objectionable words and ideas avoided. Much 
is brought into the text by way of explanation ; much is left out. 
Transpositions are not unfrequent. The want of a mastery of the 
two languages, Hebrew and Greek, is everywhere observable. 

Attempts have been made by Ussher, Hody, and Eichhorn to de- 
termine more particularly the times when several of the books were 
first translated. But they have not been successful. Thus it is 
inferred that the book of Joshua could not have been translated till 
upwards of twenty years after the death of Ptolemy Lagus, because 
in viii. 18. the translator has introduced the word yaiabs, a term of 
Gallic origin, signifying a dart or javelin peculiar to the Gauls, who 
made an irruption into Greece, B.C. 278; some time after which 
event the Egyptian kings took Gallic mercenaries into their service. 
But all this is trifling. It is more probable that the Hebrew word 
was here left untranslated, and one of a similar sound in Greek sub- 
stituted for it. 

Again, it has been supposed that the prophets were not translated 
till after the death of Philometor, because Antiochus Epiphanes, 
who died in the seventeenth year of Philometor's reign, forbad the 
reading of the law in the Jewish synagogues. The Jews had there- 
fore recourse to the prophets. But the interdict in question is base- 
less. That the law alone was forbidden by Antiochus, wants historic 
probability. 

It has also been inferred by Ussher and Hody, from the historical 
appendix to the book of Esther, that the latter was rendered into 
Greek in the reign of Philometor. To this Havernick replies that 
the epilogue in question relates to the apocryphal additions to 
Esther, which are of later origin than the book itself, an affirmation 
which appears very plausible. But, after minute examination, we 
believe that the whole book of Esther is meant. And this is the view 
of Fritzsche, who has given much attention to the Greek version of 
Esther. Whether the (apocryphal) additions are included is matter 
of doubt. l Fritzsche supposes that they are later than the origin of 
the version of the book to which they are appended. 

There are no good reasons for supposing that certain books were 
not translated till after the time of Christ, such as Judges and 
Daniel. Nor can Ezekiel be placed after Christ, because Philo is 
silent respecting it. As far as we can now ascertain, all the books 
were translated about or soon after the middle of the second century 
before Christ. The translation was begun in the time of the first 
Ptolemys, and the other books were gradually added till the middle 
of this second century B.C. 

In consequence of the agreement observed between the text lying 
at the basis of the Greek Pentateuch and the Samaritan, various 
theories have been proposed as explanatory of it. 

1 Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, part i. p. 73. 



The Septuagint Translation. 53 

1. Some have thought that the Alexandrians translated from a 
Samaritan MS. So Hottinger, Postellus, L. de Dieu, Whiston, 
Hassencamp, Eichhorn, and Bauer. This rests on two or three 
passages in Origen and Jerome, where it is stated that the venerable 
name Jehovah was not in the letters in common use, but in very 
ancient characters; and also on the fact that consonants are fre- 
quently confounded in the Septuagint whose forms are similar in the 
Samaritan, but not in the Hebrew alphabet. These considerations 
are worthless. The text of the prophets and Hagiographa at the 
basis of the Septuagint differs quite as much from the Masoretic 
text, as that at the basis of the Greek Pentateuch differs from the 
Masoretic Pentateuch. And it is certain that Hebrew and Sama- 
ritan characters, at the time when the version was made, were alike. 
The change from the old into the modern Hebrew character had not 
then taken place. 

2. Others have supposed that the one Pentateuch was interpo- 
lated from the other. So P. Meor Enayim, Ussher, Grotius, and 
others. This theory of interpolation in some shape appears almost 
indispensable for the solution of the problem. If we assume, with 
Frankel, that the Samaritan was made gradually into its present 
form, and that the later Samaritans had forgotten the dispute that 
once took place between them and the Jews in Alexandria, the rela- 
tions in which they stood to one another will not form an insuper- 
able objection to the hypothesis that the Samaritans used the LXX. 
Still the hatred between the Jews and Samaritans at Alexandria is 
an objection to the interpolation new. l 

3. Gesenius thinks 2 that the Samaritan Pentateuch and Septua- 
gint both flowed from Jewish MSS. which resembled one another, and 
followed a different recension of the Pentateuch from the one that 
afterwards obtained public authority among the Palestinians, but 
that the Samaritan copy was subsequently corrected and interpo- 
lated by illiterate transcribers. This hypothesis is implicitly adopted 
by Stuart. 3 Doubtless it is plausible and ingenious. Yet it is 
improbable in some parts. The assumption of two recensions of the 
Pentateuch seems unlikely. The Alexandrian Jews were not so 
careless of the law as that would indicate. They explained it alle- 
gorically, but adhered to the letter. The text of the law was always 
venerated. 

4. Dr. Lee conjectures, that the early Christians introduced into 
their copies Samaritan glosses, which were subsequently taken into the 
text by careless, unskilful copyists. 4 This is contrary to the habits 
of the early Christians. 

5. P. Asaria conjectures 5 that an Aramaean version was extant 
at the time of Ezra, from which the Septuagint was afterwards 
taken. The Targum was loose and paraphrastic. Its text had 

1 Uber den Einfluss, u. s. -sv., p. 237. et seqq. 

2 De Pentatencbi Samaritani origine, &c. p. 14. 

3 American Bib. Eepos. for 1832, p. 714. 

* Prolegomena in Biblia Polyglotta, p. 55. s Meor Enayim. 

E 3 



54 Biblical Criticism. 

suffered much. Both the Greek version and the Samaritan Pen- 
tateuch flowed from it. This hypothesis explains many phenomena, 
but it does not satisfactorily account for all, as Frankel observes. 
We believe that the Pentateuch of the Samaritans originated too 
early for this; and it is wholly improbable that a Chaldee para- 
phrase appeared so early as Ezra's time. 

All explanations of the agreement in question, hitherto proposed, 
have been insufficient. The most probable way of accounting for the 
coincidence is, the fact that the Septuagint was largely used in the 
Samaritan. The additions to the Masoretic text which the latter 
presents are in a great measure copies of the Greek reproduced and 
Hebraised in a very clumsy and incorrect manner. Both documents 
were also influenced either by an Aramaean paraphrase which circu- 
lated in different forms, or by Aramaean paraphrases. Chaldaic 
e'ements and Midrashim were introduced into their texts. The 
coincidence is not so remarkable a phenomenon as has been com- 
monly thought, for the disagreement is far greater than the agree- 
ment. 

A singular hypothesis was started by Tychsen respecting the de- 
rivation of the Greek version from Hebrew MSS. The ambassadors 
sent from Jerusalem transcribed the Hebrew copy into Greek for 
the king's use, and the translators rendered into Greek from this 
Hebrew-Greek copy. 1 

It were a waste of words to refute such a wild hypothesis, espe- 
cially after it has been so effectually demolished by Hassencamp. 

The Greek version soon acquired great reputation and authority 
among the Hellenists, as is evident from the fabulous accounts of its 
origin and the belief in its inspiration. It was the object of the 
legends respecting it to assert for it the same authority with the ori- 
ginal text. Philo believed in its inspiration ; and even the Talmud 
contains traces of the same notion. Nor was the extravagant view 
of its correctness confined to the Hellenists. The Jews in Palestine 
shared the same belief. Not only does Philo use it alone, but 
Josephus employs it much more than the Hebrew. The New Tes- 
tament writers also used it more than the original, even where it gives 
the sense very loosely without adhering to the Hebrew. Some have 
thought that it was read in the synagogues in Palestine, as well as in 
those out of it. It must be confessed however, that all the evidence 
adduced on behalf of this opinion is not valid or pertinent. But 
two passages, one in Tertullian and one in Justin Martyr, with a 
third in Justinian's Novell. (146), appear to justify and confirm it. 
Frankel's attempt to evade it by a forced interpretation of the words 
in the Novell., as if they meant an interpretation in Greek and not a 
Greek version, is forced and unnatural. 2 

To the early Christian fathers, the Greek version was the only 
source of their acquaintance with the Old Testament. They did not 
know the original, and were satisfied with the Septuagint as sub- 

1 Tentamen de variis codicum Hebr, V. T. MS. generibus, p. 66. et seqq. . 

2 Vorstudien, u. s. w., p. 56. et seqq. See Hody, p. 224. 



Ancient Greek Versions. 55 

stantially correct. Origen and Jerome were the only fathers who 
could read Hebrew. 

Disputes arose at an early period between the Jews and the Chris- 
tians respecting the Septuagint. When the latter quoted it in 
argument, the Jews must have been often perplexed. We find 
traces of such controversy as early as in Justin Martyr. In conse- 
quence of its furnishing powerful weapons against the Jews in favour 
of the Messiahship of Jesus, it fell under suspicion. They hated it 
as much as they had before esteemed it. They even instituted a 
solemn fast, on the 8th of Tebet, to execrate the memory of the day 
when it was made. 1 



CHAP. XII. 

OTHER ANCIENT GREEK VERSIONS. 
AQUILA, 

Other Greek translations were made, of which some fragments only 
remain. As the Jews had become dissatisfied with the LXX., a ver- 
sion was soon undertaken, which they adopted and opposed to it. It 
is not surprising that they wished for another, when the state of the 
Septuagint text was considered, added to the many deviations from 
the Masoretic Hebrew which that text at first presented from igno- 
rance on the part of the translators and other causes injuriously ope- 
rating. Aquila, a Jewish proselyte belonging to Sinope, in Pontus, 
made a Greek translation for the use of the Jews. The exact time at 
which it appeared cannot be known. Epiphanius calls him the ne- 
phew (jrsvdspiSris) of Hadrian ; and Irenams appears to consider him a 
contemporary. Credner has shown that Justin Martyr does not 
quote the version, as was thought at one time. 2 He may be placed 
about or after the middle of the second century. Many Jewish 
scholars suppose that Aquila is identical with Onkelos the Targumist, 
an opinion favoured by the fact of the name being written in Rab- 
binical works not only D^py and D^ptf, but also D"6p:iN\ 

This version was extremely literal. Every Hebrew word was ren- 
dered by a corresponding Greek one. Even nx, prefixed to the object 
of a verb, was represented by crw, as in Gen. i. 1. This character 
renders it very valuable for criticism, but much less so for interpreta- 
tion, since it is so slavishly verbal as to be occasionally unintelligible. 

It may be readily supposed, that the translator's fellow-religionists 
received his work with high esteem. If not made on purpose to 
serve their cause in opposition to Christian polemics, it was at least 
substituted for the Septuagint, and employed in aid of Jewish senti- 
ments. So much was it approved by them, that it was designated the 

1 See Herzog's Encyklop. article Alexandrinische Bibeliibersetzung, by Fritzscbe, and 
my Bib. Crit., vol. i. 

2 BeitxK^c zur Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 198. 

E 4 



56 Biblical Criticism. 

Hebrew verity, as if it were a true representative of the Hebrew 
itself, and on a par with it. It does not seem however to have been 
very favourably received by the early Christian fathers. But their 
judgments of it are not uniform or harmonious. Irenaeus, Epi- 
phanius, and Jerome speak severely of it. But the opinion of the 
last writer was not consistent, for he even prefers it to the LXX. on 
one occasion, and passes a favourable judgment on its merits. 1 It 
would also appear from Jerome, that Aquila published a second edi- 
tion. He revised the first and made it more literal. Whether the 
revision extended to all the books, or only to the three of which 
fragments have been preserved, viz. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel, 
is uncertain. It is a mistake to suppose, with some, that in the 146 
Novell, of Justinian, Aquila's second edition is meant by secunda 
editio. 

There is no just cause, as far as we can judge, for the accusations 
of some early writers, like Irenseus and Philastrius, that Aquila per- 
verted passages relating to the Messiah, in order to please the Jews. 
It is not improbable that he had a polemic object in making the ver- 
sion ; but that circumstance does not argue that he knowingly misin- 
terpreted the original. The fathers, with scarcely an exception, were 
incompetent judges on the point. They could not compare Aquila's 
version with the original, but merely with the Septuagint. Jerome, 
on the whole, speaks very highly of it. Hence we cannot sympathise 
in Kennicott's depreciating remarks on Aquila. 2 

THEODOTION. 

Theodotion was a Jewish proselyte of Ephesus, and is called by 
Jerome an Ebionite, semi-Christian, and Jew. Epiphanius's account 
is somewhat different, and apparently inaccurate. The same writer 
says that his version was published under Commodus (180 — 192), 
which may, perhaps, be reconciled with Irenasus, who represents 
him as contemporary or nearly so with Aquila. But we cannot 
attach any weight to the statement of Epiphanius. Theodotion lived 
somewhat later than Aquila. 

The work of Theodotion can scarcely be called a new version. It 
is rather a revised edition of the LXX. Very early the Septuagint 
translation of Daniel was discarded by the Christians, and that of 
Theodotion substituted in its place, as being much more accurate. 
According to Credner 3 , this did not take place till the end of the 
third century. The reason for such a step was unknown to Jerome. 
When Theodotion forsakes the LXX., and follows his own method of 
interpretation, he preserves a middle course between the servile 
closeness of Aquila, and the freedom of Symmachus. Judging how- 
ever from remaining fragments, he had not an accurate acquaintance 
with the Hebrew language, and often made mistakes. Bauer 4 gives 

1 Epist. ad Marcellam, Opp. vol. iv. 2. p. 61. 

2 Second Dissertation on the state of the Hebrew text, p. 365. 

3 Beitrage, u. s. w., vol. ii. p. 257. et seqq. 

4 Ciitica Sacra, p. 279. 



Ancient Greek Versions. .57 

as examples of his ignorance, feyycoX, Lev. vii. 18. ; fiacnfiaa, Lev. 
xiii. 6. ; QafisX, Lev. xviii. 23. ; /ccoXvfAa, Dent., xxii. 9. ; sS&ifj,, Isa. 
lxiv. 5. Whether he made a second edition is uncertain, for the 
passage in Jerome on which the opinion is founded, appears to be 
corrupt. If Hody's conjecture be probable, no second edition is 
there referred to. 1 

SYMMACHUS. 

Symmachus was an Ebionite, according to Jerome and Eusebius ; 
and with this agree Syrian notices in Asseman. According to others, 
he was a Samaritan, as he is represented by Epiphanius, the synopsis 
of sacred Scripture among Athanasius's works, the Paschal Chronicle, 
and Euthymius Zygabenus. Epiphanius places him under the Em- 
peror Severus; and with this agrees Irenaeus's silence respecting 
him. His translation was made before Origen, and after Theo- 
dotion's. 

The character of the version is freer than that of Aquila or Theo- 
dotion. Symmachus was more anxious about the sense than the 
letter — about style and expression in preference to rigid fidelity. 
The purity and elegance of his Greek have been referred to ; but the 
purity can only be relative, in comparison with the other Greek ver- 
sions. Jerome speaks of a second edition. Various examples to 
illustrate the excellence of Symmachus as an interpreter, are given 
by Bauer from Thieme. 2 Dr. H. Owen has also printed the first 
chapter of Genesis along with the same portion in the Septuagint, 
Aquila, and Theodotion in parallel columns, for the purpose of show- 
ing their respective characteristics together. 3 A comparison of these 
three versions with the Septuagint will prove their greater fidelity to 
the original. They are not so diffuse and glossarial. In the reso- 
lution of tropical phrases also, they differ from the LXX. Occasion - 
ally all three agree in opposition to the latter. But it is matter of 
regret that we have nothing but fragments of them now. The most 
copious collection of such fragments is that made by Montfaucon 
from the remains of the Hexapla, and published at Paris in two folio 
volumes, 1714. Such fragments of Aquila as appear in Eabbinical 
writings, have been collected and published by Anger, with explana- 
tory comments, 1845. 

The three anonymous translations, commonly called the fifth 
sixth and seventh versions, derive their names from the order in 
which Origen disposed them in the columns of his great work on the 
Bible. Origen himself did not know their authors ; and it is very 
probable that they did not extend over the whole of the Old Testa- 
ment. It is usually supposed that the author of the sixth was a 
Christian, from a fragment on Hab. iii. 13. But Jerome calls the 
translators of the fifth and sixth Judaici translatores. It is impossible 
to tell the extent of each or all of them. From the fragments in 
Montfaucon, it appears that the fifth and sixth comprehended the 

1 " Theodotio interpretatus est sudrinas : secunda, pessima, Symmachus novissimas." 
Hieronyrn. in Jer. xxix. 17. Hody would insert after sudrinas, Aquila? prima editio. 

2 Critica Sacra, p. 277. et seqq. 3 Observations on the Septuagint, p. 114. et seqq. 



58 Biblical Criticism. 

Pentateuch, the minor prophets, the Psalms, Solomon's Song ; the 
seventh, Psalms and Solomon's Song. Jerome, however, apparently 
indicates that they also embraced Job and Proverbs. Fragments of 
the fifth, in a Hexaplar-Syriac version of the second book of Kings, 
were also found by Bruns in a Paris MS. 

In the margin of MSS. containing the Greek Bible or LXX., 
notes have been found containing, it is thought, small fragments of 
versions. These are cited as 6 'JLfipalos, the Hebrew ; 6 Xvpos, the 
Syrian ; to l^afxapsiTiKov, the Samaritan ; 6 'JLXkrjvtfcos, the Hellenic. 

6 'Eftpalos refers to remarks on the text of the LXX. compared 
with the Hebrew, chiefly extracted from Jerome. 

6 Xvpos, the old Syriac version. Doederlein, followed by Eichhorn 
and most others, think that fragments of the Greek version made by 
Sophronius are intended, which is improbable. That version was 
taken from Jerome's new Hebrew-Latin, and was much used in 
Syria. 

To Xa/xapscTLKov denotes fragments of a Samaritan-Greek version. 
Some suppose them to be fragments of a Greek translation made from 
the Samaritan Pentateuch. Others regard them as extracts trans- 
lated from the Samaritan version. Perhaps they are merely explana- 
tory notes on the LXX. 1 

6 'KXXtjvlkos alludes to an unknown Greek translation. 

From the widely extended use of the LXX. among Hellenists, and 
subsequently in Christian churches, as well as the want of a critically 
established text of it, numerous corruptions crept in. Transcribers 
and readers could alter or add capriciously, as long as there was no 
definite standard-form of the text to guide them. And this they 
must have done. They acted carelessly and arbitrarily in regard to 
the biblical text of the Old Testament. Even in Josephus and Philo 
traces of its corruption may be found. In the New Testament 
also, as well as the earliest fathers, several may be detected. There 
can be little doubt that the version was altered by Christian hands, 
especially in Messianic passages. This is the case with the text 
employed by Justin Martyr. And the appearance of other Greek 
versions, in the first three centuries, increased the embarrassed state 
of the text, since the Septuagint could so easily be amended by 
means of them. Under such circumstances, Origen, who was alive to 
the fact of its corruptness, undertook to place the text of the LXX. 
in such a light as that it could be easily used for exegetical purposes. 
He showed how it should or could be corrected. His purpose was 
not a critical so much as an apologetic one. It was not to set forth a 
critically revised text, but to exhibit the true relation of the Greek 
version to the original. He substituted as it were the fundamental 
text for the translation, by way of aiding the Christians in their con- 
troversies with the Jews. 2 

The great work produced by Origen is commonly called the Hexapla, 
from its containing six columns. But it is commonly supposed that 
he began with the Tetrapla, a work containing only four columns, 

1 See De Wette, Einleit. § 63 b. p. 98. 2 Epist. ad Afric., p. 16. et seqq. 



Ancient Greek Versions. 59 

in which were ranged the four Greek versions of the LXX., Aquila, 
Symmachus, and Theodotion ; and that this, his first production, 
stimulated his mind to a greater task. Accordingly, it is believed 
that he proceeded to make another work on a more extended plan, 
containing first, the Hebrew in its own character; secondly, the same 
in Greek letters ; thirdly, the version of Aquila ; fourthly, that of 
Symmachus ; fifthly, the LXX. ; sixthly, Theodotion ; seventhly, 
eighthly, and ninthly, versions five, six, and seven. This was the 
proper Hexapla, which we suppose, with most critics, to have been a 
separate production from the Tetrapla. Some however have con- 
sidered the Hexapla and Tetrapla to be merely different appellations 
of the same, according to the number of columns taken into account. 
Having found the sixth, seventh, and eighth versions, he made the 
Hexapla and Octapla, which are appellations of the one work accord- 
ing to the columns. Some think that he first wrote the Tetrapla ; 
and, after finding the fifth, sixth, and seventh versions, the Hexapla 
and Octapla. So Hody, Ussher, Montfaucon, and others. Others 
suppose that he wrote the Hexapla first ; and, by taking away the 
two Hebrew texts, made the Tetrapla. So Yalesius in his note to 
Eusebius vi. 16. It is an obvious inference from Euseb. vi. 16., 
and cod. March, ap. Montfauc. prselim. p. 10. 15. (comp. schol. c. 
Coislin. on Psal. lxxxvi.), that the Tetrapla was a distinct work from 
the Hexapla. Redepenning has also shown that the former was sub- 
sequent to the latter. 1 Hexapla and Octapla are only different names 
for the same work ; but the Tetrapla was another later one. The 
text of the LXX. was amended from the rest. When he saw some- 
thing in the Hebrew which the LXX. wanted, he inserted it out of 
Theodotion, with an asterisk at the commencement, and the name of 
the source to which the supplement belonged (*). When there was 
something superfluous in the text, he allowed it to stand with an 
obelisk prefixed (S). Two points ( : ) after a supplement or omis- 
sion, showed how far the proposed correction extended. He also 
used lemniscs (-r-) and hypolemniscs (— ), both mentioned by Epi- 
phanius. The former appear to have been affixed to words in which 
the LXX. and Theodotion coincided ; the latter to words in Theodo- 
tion alone. In every case, the initial letter of each translator's name 
was put immediately after the asterisk, to indicate the source whence 
a supplementary passage was taken. 

The reason that determined the particular order of the columns, 
was founded on the nature of the versions. The version of Aquila, 
as coming nearest to the Hebrew original, occupies the place next to 
it. After Aquila was placed Symmachus, because he is nearer to 
the Hebrew than the LXX. or Theodotion. The LXX. precedes 
Theodotion, because the latter followed the former very closely. 
Epiphanius gives another but incorrect explanation of the reason 
which led to the disposing of the columns in the order they were 
placed in. We subjoin the following table illustrative of the 
Tetrapla and Hexapla. 

1 Origines, vol. ii. p. 175. et seqq. 



60 



Biblical Criticism. 



No. 1. 

Tetrapla. 

Gen. i. 1. 



o; o'. 


'AzuXct;. 


"Sv/Apxxos. 


&loSoriuv. 


'Ev apxfj iiroiriaev 6 
Qebs rbv ovpavbv Kal 
r\\v "yyjv. 


'Ev Ke(paAal(f> eKriaev 
6 Qebs abv rbv ovpavbv 
Kal abv tV yrjv. 


'Ev apxy eKricrev 6 
®ebs rbv ovpavbv Kal 
t))v yr\v. 


'Ev apxj) tKTiaev 6 
Qebs rbv ovpavbv Kal 
t)]v yrjv. 







No 


2. 






Hexapla. 




Gen. i. 20. 




To'Efyx'izov. 


>EXXi|VHe«7s 


'AxiAxi. 


'SC/Afj.axo;. 


o; o'. 


©lohorian. 


D»n^N ~MiV) 


Oviaifiep e\a>- 


Kal elirtv 6 


Kal eitcev 6 


Kal elirev 6 


Kal elnev 6 


o»»n i*x» 


eijU. lapeaov 


Qe6s • e£ep- 


Qeos • i^ep- 


Qe6s • e|a- 


QeSs ■ e^ep^d- 






\\idro rb. vdara 


ipdro ret, vSara 


yayero ra 


Twaav to. 8- 


traj pB> 


a/xatfji crapes 


epirerd ty»XV s 


ep-Kerbvtyvxh v 


SSara epirera 


5aTa epicerd 


t\)y\ n»n 


vacpes aia 


$wcnr)s, Kal 


^wcrav, Kal 


tyvx&v faoSiv, 


xf/vxds £daas, 


-Sy v\w 


ovia(p lecocpecp 


irerrjvbv inrd- 


irerrivbv ire- 


Kal irereiva 


Kal irerrjvov 


»ja _ b y-\nn 


aA-aapes a\- 


fxevov iw) rfjs 
yijs, enl TrpS- 


r6[xevov eirl 
ttjs yris, Ka- 


irerojxeva eirl 
rijs yrjs, Kara, 


Trero/xevov enl 
Trjs yrjs, Ha- 


: on»>n y>pn 


cpavrj paKit) 


ffooirov tov 


ra. itpiowKov 


rb arepeco/xa 


rd irp6o~a)Tcov 




ao~anaijx. 


ffrepeccfiaros 


crrepeu>j.i.aros 


tov ovpavov. 


o~TepecifiaTos 






tov ovpavov. 


ovpavov. Kal 


— Kaleyevero 


ovpavov. Kal 








iyevero ov- 


ovtois : 


iyevero ov- 


Psalm viii. 4. 






rois. 




T01S. 


: yw mix 


epee aa/xaxa. 


6\pofiat robs 


o\po[x.ai robs 


'6\pOfMal TOVS 


6\f/o/xai rovs 


Psalm xviii. 7- 




ovpavovs o~ov. 


ovpavovs crov. 


ovpavovs* crov: 


olpavovs ffov. 


j-mM pnS 


Aapovs wpax- 


8pa/j.e?v o5 6v. 


Spafieiv 6d6v. 


dpa/ieiv 6b~6v 
— avTov: Jer. 
xliv. 22. (li. 
22.). 

* A. ©. «•«§« 
to ft-\ utragxt" 
ivomavtroi. Jer. 
xi. 13. 

* A. X 0. 3-u- 

fiao-riigiaz. Jes. 
xxxviii. 3. 

* olT'. 

v 12 V/i xii^n : 


8pa/j.e?v 6S6v. 



Ancient Greek Versions. 



o & 



N 


!» b 

i ** 

«o £ b 


~l^ 


*~ t- 

S b 
3 ^ 


W 


2 "^ 

2 1 1 


,1 

X 


S b 

5 "£ 

2 1 1 


o 

o 


s §. 

«o Jb £ 
-o "E b 


8 

1 


<* b 

Z '! g 


1 

< 




,4 


4. 

to 3 
§ 1 


«3T 


r h 

n 
% 

Q 

C 



Origeniana, p. 1< 



This voluminous work must have occupied 
the laborious author many years ; how many 
cannot be known. It is sometimes said, that 
he spent twenty-eight years in its prepa- 
ration. But there is no foundation for this 
time. When and where he began it, as well- 
as the time and place of its completion, are 
indicated by no ancient writer. Huet says, 
that he began it at Caesarea in Cappadocia, 
and finished it at Tyre. 1 But this is incor- 
rect, for Origen, in the Epistle to Africanus, 
which was previously written in Xicomedia, 
refers to the Hexapla, as De Wette well 
observes. It may have been commenced at 
Alexandria, as De Wette conjectures. In 
consequence of its vast extent, no transcript 
of the whole seems to have been made. 
Pamphilus and Eusebius copied the text of 
the Septuagint alone, with the critical marks 
employed by Origen, viz. the asterisks and 
obeli. This was frequently transcribed. All 
that remains of the Hexapla is a few frag- 
ments, the original having probably perished 
when Csesarea was taken by the Arabs, a. d. 
653. In collecting the fragments many 
scholars have employed themselves, such as 
P. Morin, Drusius, Montfaucon, Doederlein, 
Scharfenberg, Matthaei, Schleusner, Spohn. 

It is to be regretted, that the use of 
Origen's great work led to new corruption 
in the text of the LXX. His marks were 
misunderstood or neglected by ignorant, 
careless transcribers, a circumstance which 
contributed greatly to deteriorate the genuine 
text. Hence Lucian, presbyter in Antioch 
(f 311), and Hesychius, an Egyptian bishop, 
undertook new recensions, which met with 
acceptance and came into public use. It 
is said that the former revision circulated 
in Syria, Asia Minor, and Constantinople ; 
the latter in Egypt. Holmes thinks that 
the Tetrapla lay at the basis of both, which 
they amended after the Hebrew 2 ; and Huet 
infers from a passage in Jerome that they 
used the Hexaplaric signs. But Havernick 
disputes the latter. Of these two recen- 
sions nothing has been preserved. 

Still the corruption of the text was not 
removed by these critical labours. On the 
2 Praefat. ad Tom. i. Yet. Test. Graci. sectt. ix. x. 



62 Biblical Criticism. 

contrary it was increased, because the different recensions came to 
be mixed together. Hence Jerome speaks of the LXX. as being 
in a lamentable condition; and in the same deteriorated state it 
has remained ever since. No MS. or MSS. contains any one recen- 
sion in a pure state ; nor does any edition accurately and faithfully 
represent the text in MS. 

The old unrevised text, as it existed before Origen, has been 
usually called the kolvtj, or Vulgate ; that of Origen, the Hexaplaric. 
The best single representatives of these two texts are the two lead- 
ing MSS., the Vatican and Alexandrine; the former containing, for 
the most part, the kowtj ; the latter, the Hexaplaric text. 

There are four leading editions of the LXX., from which all the 
rest have been taken. 

I. That in the Complutensian Polyglott, 1514 — 1517, folio. The 
text is taken from unknown MSS., having peculiar readings dif- 
fering from the edd. Vat. and Alex., but often confirmed by the 
Syro-Hexaplaric text. There can be no question that the MSS. were 
excellent ones, and that the editors faithfully followed them. Hence 
they have produced a good text. There is not a particle of evidence 
in favour of an assumption made respecting them, that they altered 
the readings of their MSS. to make their text more accordant with 
the Hebrew. This edition has been recently exalted to a very high 
degree by Grinfield. 1 He raises it above every other, chiefly because 
the editors have given a complete and continuous text, corresponding- 
chapter by chapter, and verse by verse, with the Hebrew original, 
free from the defects, transpositions, and interpolations of our present 
editions. But the esteemed critic ought to know that the criterion 
of excellence here set up is fallacious. It is not agreement with 
the Hebrew text which is the test of goodness ; but the most ancient 
and internally valuable MSS. of the LXX. The goodness of an 
edition depends on the fact of its being derived from the oldest and 
best MSS. 

II. The Aldine edition, 1518, folio. This contains a mixed text. 

III. The Roman edition of Sixtus V., 1587, folio. After the 
Vatican codex, but altered here and there. Mr. Grinfield has 
also attempted to lessen the credit of this edition, reducing it far 
below the Complutensian. He says its text is faulty, imperfect, 
interpolated. He takes the Hebrew as the standard, and judges by 
comparison with it. It is very true that the Roman editors have 
attached notes to each chapter, in which the readings of the Complu- 
tensian are given. But we cannot subscribe to the opinion " that 
the Roman editors frequently refer to the Complutensian text as 
furnishing the means and materials for amending and correcting the 
Vatican text," or that " in numberless instances they own the supe- 
riority of the Complutensian readings." We believe they acted 
judiciously in following the Vatican MS. as far as it was complete. 
In other parts they printed from the best they had. The preface 
disproves several of Grinfield's assertions respecting the editors of 

1 In the Gentleman's Magazine for February 1855. 



Versions from the Septuagint. 63 

the Roman edition. In some instances its text could be amended by 
the collation of MSS. since made known. In some cases the Complu- 
tensian text is preferable, because it is supported by superior MS. 
authority. But we hold that the Vatican text, as a whole, is superior 
to that of the Complutensian, or any other of the old standard edi- 
tions. The text of any really good edition must be based mainly 
upon it ; or at least on the great source whence it was taken, the 
Cod. Vaticanus. The transpositions and interpolations of which 
Grinfield complains, are in the most ancient and best MSS. Why 
then should they be rejected? Surely the mode in which we should 
judge of the goodness of the LXX.'s text is not its agreement with 
the Hebrew, but with the most ancient MSS. 

IV. The edition of Grabe, 1707— 1720,4 vols, folio. This is taken 
from the Alexandrine MS. 

The most copious and splendid edition is that of Holmes and Par- 
sons, 1798 — 1827, 5 vols, folio. The text here is the Vatican ; and 
the collection of various readings is the largest ever made. But these 
readings, derived from many MSS., are indistinctly exhibited; and 
even those of the Cod. Vat. cannot be accurately discovered. A 
better text is that in Tischendorf s edition of 1850, with a selection 
of various readings from some MSS. before unknown. 

The Septuagint version of Daniel is not that commonly published 
in editions, but Theodotion's. It was first printed at Borne in the 
year 1772, folio. 

The value of the LXX. can be now estimated pretty correctly. 
Formerly, it was either unduly exalted or depreciated. In criticism 
it will always have its place and use, because of the antiquity be- 
longing to it. But it is probably more serviceable in the interpreta- 
tion than the criticism of the text. It must be used in correcting 
the Hebrew with great caution, because its text is in the state 
already described. 1 



CHAP. XIII. 

VERSIONS FROM THE SEPTUAGINT. 

VEESIO VETUS. 

Theee is no ground for believing that several independent Latin 
versions of the Bible existed in the time of Augustine. The expres- 
sions of this father respecting translations are inexact. When he speaks 
of versio Itala 2 , he is speaking of the New Testament alone. There 
was one old Latin version with a very varying text in various MSS. ; 
and it is of these discrepant MSS. that Augustine speaks so strongly, 
not of distinct translations. This one version may indeed have been 
made, at different times, by different persons. It circulated in parts, 

1 Eor a fuller account of the Septuagint and the other Greek versions belonging to the 
Hexapla, see Davidson's Bib. Crit. vol. i. chaps. xi. xii. xiii., with the Introductions of 
De Wette and Keil. 

2 " In ipsis autem interpretationibus Itala ceteris pra?feratur ; nam est verborum 
tenacior cum perspicuitate sententias." De Doctrina Christiana, vol. ii. p. 15. 



64 Biblical Criticism. 

which each seems to have altered after his own fancy. But though 
there were a great many various readings, the version was one. No 
passage in the fathers is sufficient to show that there were many 
versions, among which Augustine preferred the one called Itala. All 
the fragments of the old Latin that can be gathered out of early 
writings and from MSS. show one translation substantially. 

The first certain traces of the vetus, or old Latin, are found at the close 
of the second century. Tertullian quotes or refers to it. Hence it 
may be dated in the second century ; and Eichhorn was right in con- 
jecturing that it was made in Africa, not in Italy. 1 This is proved 
by Wiseman from the fact, that for the first two centuries, and even 
later, there is hardly a single instance of an ecclesiastical writer 
belonging to the Italian church composing his works in any language 
but Greek, whereas not a Greek ecclesiastical writer appears in north 
Africa during the same time ; from an examination of the words and 
phrases in the versio vetus, which shows that it abounds in archaisms 
or antiquated forms of expression, found only in writers anterior to 
the Augustan age, as also that it contains many Africanisms. 2 
Jerome, referring to the copies that circulated about Rome, says 3 , 
that every one added or omitted according to his own judgment. 

It is superfluous to refer now to the conjectures respecting the 
word Itala in Augustine. It should not be altered, either into ilia, 
with Bentley and others, nor into usitata, with Potter. It ought to 
remain as it is. But it is inapplicable to the version, at least in the 
Old Testament, since Augustine is speaking of the New Testament 
in the passage where he uses Itala. The appellation Itala should 
therefore be discarded, because it does not denote a version of the 
Old Testament, but solely a class of MSS. of the New Testament 
Vulgate circulating in a particular locality. It is also a mistake 
to suppose that when Jerome speaks of the vulgata eclitio, communis 
editio, vetus editio, he means the old Latin ; for these epithets are 
descriptive of the LXX., as Leander Van Ess has fully proved. 4 

The character of the version was that of literal fidelity to the 
Greek from which it was made. It followed the Koivrj or ante- 
Hexaplaric text of the LXX., and therefore participates in the mis- 
takes existing in that text before Origen's labours upon it. The text 
of the Septuagint, which it most nearly approaches, is of course the 
Vatican. Only parts and fragments of it are preserved in the works 
of the fathers. Its utility lies in the criticism of the Septuagint text. 

All the fragments of the vetus versio that could be discovered were 
collected and published most copiously by Sabatier at Rheims, 1743, 
three vols, folio. The first two volumes contain the Old Testament. 
Additional fragments were afterwards supplied by Miinter, Hafnias, 
1819. Angelo Mai 5 added others. 

For the purpose of remedying the state of the text so much cor- 
rupted, Jerome undertook a critical revision of it about the year 

1 Einleit. vol. ii. § 323. 

2 See Wiseman's Essays, vol. i. p. 42. et seqq. 3 Prasfat. in Josua. 

4 Pragmatisch-kritische Geschichte der Vulgata, p. 24. et seqq. 

5 Nova Collectio Script. Vet. vols. iii. ix. 



Versions from the Septuagint. 65 

a.d. 382. After amending the New Testament, lie revised the 
Psalter in a cursory way ; but he subsequently amended it more 
carefully by the Hexaplaric text, and with the critical marks of 
Origen. The former was called the Roman Psalter, because it was 
used in the Roman church ; the latter, the Galilean Psalter, because 
adopted by the churches in Gaul. In like manner he corrected 
Chronicles, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Proverbs, and Job. Whether he 
revised more books than these is not very clear. In his Apology 
against Bufinus he speaks of these six only; and therefore it has 
been inferred that he revised no more. (The double prefaces to these 
six only, is another argument adduced ; but there are no double 
prefaces to Proverbs and Canticles.) Yet in other writings he speaks 
generally, as if he had amended the whole Septuagint. It is matter 
of regret, that the greater part of the books he had corrected were 
lost through the treachery of a friend, as he himself says. Both 
Psalters and Job are all that have survived. 

SYRIAC VERSIONS FROM THE LXX. 

Till the sixth century of the Christian era, the Syrians seem to 
have had only the Peshito, taken from the original Hebrew. But in 
consequence of the separation of the Monophysites from the Xesto- 
rians, a version of the Old Testament from the Greek was executed. 

At the request of Athanasius, Monophysite patriarch of Antioch, 
Paul, bishop of Telia in Mesopotamia, undertook a Syriac version 
from the Greek during his abode at Alexandria. The work thus 
executed follows the Hexaplaric text, word for word. So literal and 
close is it, that the Syriac usage is neglected for the sake of adhering 
to the Greek words and imitating the Greek etymology. Even the 
article is represented. It has also the Hexaplaric marks. The text 
agrees for the most part with the Alexandrine MS. ; but it not un- 
frequently coincides too with the Vatican and Complutensian texts. 
This version is of great value towards restoring the true Hexaplar 
text of the LXX. 

Andrew Masius possessed and used a MS. containing the present 
translation, which has since been lost. A MS. in the Ambrosian 
Library at Milan contains the Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, 
Canticles, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, the twelve minor prophets, 
Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations, Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah. A Paris 
MS. contains the fourth book of Kings. With the exception of the 
apocryphal parts, all these have been printed by Xorberg, Bugati, 
Hasse, and Middeldorpf. 

This is the version which was known for some time as the versio 
Jigurata, and believed to be an independent one. Pococke erro- 
neously read and translated Abulfaragius's words ! , as was pointed 
out by De Sacy. 2 At the beginning of the eighth century, James of 
Edessa revised the Hexaplaric Syrian version after the Hexaplaric 
text of Origen and the Peshito. He did not therefore make a new 

1 In Abulfaragii Historia Dynast, p. 100. 

2 In Eichhorn's Allgem. Biblioth. vol. viii. p. 588. 
VOL. II. F 



66 Biblical Criticism. 

version, but a new recension of that already made by Paul of Telia. 
Only a few fragments of it have been communicated to the public 
by E>e Sacy and Bugati. 

The Nestorian patriarch Mar Abba (f 552) is also said to have 
made a Syriac translation from the Greek ; but it appears never to 
have got into circulation, and we know nothing of it except the 
name. 1 

Polycarp, rural bishop to Philoxenus or Xenayas, bishop of Ma- 
bug or Hierapolis in Syria (488—518), in addition to the New 
Testament had also translated the Psalter out of the Greek into 
Syriac, as we learn from Moses of Aghelle in Mesopotamia, belong- 
ing to the sixth century. But no version of the entire Old Testament 
was made, either by Philoxenus or Polycarp, as we infer from Bar- 
hebraeus and Moses Bar Cepha. Hence the scholion in the margin of 
the Ambrosian MS. at Isa. ix. 6. must be based on error. 2 

It does not appear that Thomas of Charkel or Heraclea made a 
version of the Old Testament, as Pococke supposed. The Harklean 
version of the history of Susanna in a MS. mentioned by that scholar, 
is merely a free revision of Theodotion's. 

ETHIOPIC VERSION. 

When Christianity spread among the Ethiopians, they received in 
the fourth century a version of the entire Bible executed in the 
ancient Geez, or holy dialect. It has been supposed that Frumen- 
tius was the author, since the Ethiopic tradition refers it to him 
under the appellation of Abba Salama. But it probably proceeded 
from different individuals ; from Christians not Jews. There can 
be little doubt that it was made from the Septuagint, though this is 
denied by Bruce. Dorn 3 supposes that the translator consulted the 
original Hebrew also ; an opinion disputed by Gesenius 4 and 
Eodiger. 5 Although there are several MSS. in Europe containing 
the Ethiopic version entire, only parts have been printed at different 
times. The Psalter has been published oftenest, first of all by Pot- 
ken at Rome, along with Solomon's Song, 1513, 4to. It was also 
published by the Bible Society at London in 1815. Ruth, Jonah, 
Joel, Malachi, a few chapters of Genesis were published, in addition 
to the Psalms and Canticles, till Dillmann recently began to edit all 
the Old Testament from various MSS., some volumes of which have 
already appeared. This will be the first complete edition of the 
Old Testament. The same scholar has described the version in 
Herzog's Encyklopasdie. 

EGYPTIAN VERSIONS. 

Towards the conclusion of the third and commencement of the 
fourth centuries, Christianity seems to have penetrated into the pro- 
vinces of Egypt, about which time the origin of Egyptian versions 
may be placed. 

1 Eichhorn, Einleit. vol. ii. § 267. 2 Hiivernick, Einleit. i. 2. pp. 62, 63. 

3 De Psalterio ^Ethiop. 4 In the Allgem. Litt. Zeit. for 1832. 5 Ibid. 



Versions from the Septaagint. 67 

One was made in the dialect of Lower Egypt, improperly called 
Coptic, the Memphitic version ; another in that of Upper Egypt, the 
Sahidic or Thebaic. Both were taken from the LXX., but which 
preceded the other it is difficult to tell. Both appear to belong to 
the third century. According to Miinter 1 their basis is the Hesychian 
recension. Theodotion's version was used in the book of Daniel. 
.Of the Memphitic, various books have been printed : the Pentateuch 
by Wilkins ; the Psalms repeatedly, last of all by Schwartze ; the 
greater prophets by Tattam ; pieces of Jeremiah by Mingarelli ; of 
Daniel by Miinter ; and of Isaiah by Engelbreth. Of the Sahidic, 
mere fragments have been printed by Miinter, Mingarelli, and Zoega, 
embracing Daniel ix. ; Jer. xiii. 14., xiv. 19.; Isa. i. 1 — 9. 16., v. 18 
— 25. A version in the Basmuric dialect has also been discovered, 
a dialect compounded of the other two, but inclining more to the 
Sahidic. Engelbreth has published some fragments of it, at Copen- 
hagen, 1811. 

ARMENIAN VERSION. 

Along with their alphabet, the Armenians received from Miesrob 
in the fifth century an Armenian version of the Bible. In this work 
he was assisted by two scholars, Johannes Ekelensis and Josephus 
Palnensis, whom he had sent to Alexandria that they might become 
better acquainted with the Greek language. The translation of the 
Old Testament follows the Septuagint; but in Daniel, Theodotion. 
The text, as it appears in it, is a mixed one, agreeing with none of 
our leading recensions of the LXX. It is said by Walton 2 to have 
been subsequently interpolated from the Peshito, but this is denied 
by Wiseman 3 and Rhode. 4 La Croze asserted also that it was inter- 
polated from the Vulgate in the thirteenth century ; but this wants 
proof. The Psalms were first printed repeatedly ; and the entire 
Bible, under the supervision of Uskan at Amsterdam, 1666, 4to. 
Uskan has been charged with altering the text after the Vulgate. 

GEORGIAN VERSION. 
In the sixth century, the Georgians received a translation of the 
Bible, after the example of the Armenians, from whom they received 
the art of writing. This version is in the sacred or ecclesiastical 
dialect of the country, and in the Armenian character. The Old 
Testament part was taken from the LXX., and the authors are 
unknown. The entire Bible was published at Moscow, 1743, fob, 
revised and amended from the Slavonic. 

SLAVONIC VERSION. 
The Slavonic version of the Bible has been usually attributed to 
the brothers Cyril and Methodius in the ninth century, who trans- 
lated the Old Testament from the Septuagint. But Alter of Vienna, 

1 Specim. verss. Danielis Coptic, p. 13. 

2 Prolegomena in Biblia Polyglotta, xiii. 16. p. 621. ed. Dathe. 

3 Horse Syriacae, p. 141. et seqq. 

4 Gregorii Barhebrad Sehol. in Psalm, vet. xviii. p. 74. 

f 2 



68 Biblical Criticism. 

who collated it for Holmes, affirms that it was made from the vetus 
or old Latin in the glagolitic character, and first altered in the four- 
teenth century after Greek MSS. Hence Methodius and Cyril 
cannot be the authors of it ; nor can it be put among the mediate 
versions derived from the LXX. Perhaps Methodius and Cyril 
merely made the New Testament version from the Greek. After- 
wards the Old Testament was taken from the Latin. The Penta- 
teuch was first printed at Prague, 1519, and the whole Bible at the 
same place in 1570. It has been often reprinted. 

GOTHIC VERSION. 

This version is ascribed to Ulphilas, bishop of the Maeso- Goths, in 
the fourth century. Both Old and New Testaments were made 
from the Greek. But only a few fragments of the former have been 
discovered by Angelo Mai in some leaves of a Latin MS. belonging 
to the Ambrosian Library at Milan, containing small pieces of the 
books of Kings, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Ezra ii. 28 — 42. ; Neh. v. 13 
— 18., vi. 14 — 19., vii. 1 — 3., were published by him and Castilioni; 
and again by Gabelentz and Lobe, in their complete edition of all 
the fragments of the Gothic Scriptures known to be extant, vol. ii. 
part i. 1843. As far as a judgment can be formed from these little 
parts, the version was carefully and faithfully made from the Hexa- 
plaric text. Ulphilas's text, where it departs from the leading 
editions, agrees with the Complutensian. 

ARABIC VERSIONS. 

Several Arabic versions were made from the LXX. 

1. The Arabic translation of the Prophets, printed in the Paris and 
London Polyglotts. According to the subscription to the Paris MS. 
of it, the version was made by an Alexandrine, probably after the 
tenth century. The Hexaplaric text is the basis of it, according to 
Gesenius. 

2. A version of Solomon's writings, also printed in the Polyglotts. 

3. The book of Ezra, printed in the same. 

4. The Psalms, in the Polyglotts, in an Egyptian recension ; 
printed in Justiniani's Polyglott Psalter, after a Syriac recension. 
The latter is also contained in the Psalter of V. Scialac and Gabriel 
Sionita, printed at Rome in 1614. 

5. The version used among the Melchites 1 , made by Abdallah 
Ibn Alfadl before the twelfth century. 

Various other Arabic translations from the Greek are still un- 
printed. 2 

1 The orthodox Greeks were so called from a Syriae word denoting King, as being 
adherents to the imperial religion of the Byzantine empire. 

2 See Rodiger de Origine et Indole Arab. Librorum Tet. Test. Histor. Interpretat. ; and 
Keil's Einleit. p. 624. 



Tar gums, 69 



CHAR XIV. 

VENETIAN GREEK VERSION. 

Another Greek version is the Venetian, so called from a MS. in 
the library of St. Mark's church at Venice, which contains it. This 
is the only codex of the version which has been discovered. The 
MS. in question belongs to the fourteenth century, and the version 
itself to the middle-age period. It extends to several books of the 
Old Testament, the Pentateuch, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, 
Ruth, Lamentations, Daniel. Who the author was, cannot be 
exactly discovered. He was certainly not a Jew. Ammon thinks 
that he was a Christian monk; Ziegler and Bauer that he was a 
Christian grammarian of Constantinople, who had been taught 
Hebrew by a western Jew. The version itself follows the Masoretic 
text with slavish fidelity, and the diction is a curious mixture of the 
pure Attic dialect and barbarisms. It is useless to speculate about 
the time when the translator lived. Probably he belonged to the 
period between the eighth and eleventh centuries. The work is of 
little use in criticism, especially as it does not follow the Hebrew alone, 
but has received contributions from the LXX., from other Greek 
versions, and from Jewish interpreters. The Pentateuch part was 
published by Ammon at Erlangen, 1790, 1791, and the other books 



CHAP. XV. 



The word Targum signifies version or interpretation, and may denote 
any translation. But it has come to be restricted to those para- 
phrastic versions of the Old Testament which were made in the 
Chaldee dialect. 

The origin of these paraphrases can be traced with tolerable cer- 
tainty. How and why they were made can be readily known. But 
the exact time when they began to be used is somewhat uncertain. 
After Hebrew had ceased to be spoken as the language of the 
people, the lessons which were read out of the Old Testament in the 
synagogue required an accompanying explanation. Oral comments 
were made at the time of the lessons, in order that the latter might 
be intelligible. AVe do not suppose, however, that the practice of 
oral explanations began with the time of Ezra, because the old lan- 
guage did not become extinct so early. And it is a mistaken view 
of the passage in Xehemiah viii. 8. which finds these Chaldee inter- 
pretations there. At first, the remarks made were oral. But this 
could scarcely have been satisfactory, especially as the interpreter 

1 See Davidson's Bib. Crit. vol. i. pp. 222, 223.; and Bertholdt, Einleit. vol. U, 
p. 566. et seqq. 



70 Biblical Criticism. 

took great freedom with the text, indulging occasionally in extensive 
and miscellaneous comments. We know that his position had been 
abused by the fact, that hermeneutical rules were made to restrain 
the licence so natural to it. The reader and interpreter were different 
persons, and seem to have proceeded alternately in paragraphs or 
otherwise. 

What interval elapsed between the time when these oral para- 
phrases began, and when the first was committed to writing, it is 
impossible to say. Probably no long period intervened. The oral 
were soon succeeded by the written comments. It is clear that written 
Targums existed before the time of Christ. Whether Zunz is correct 
in affirming that they existed on most of the biblical books as early 
as the Hasmonean time is doubtful. 1 The Mishna speaks of the 
language and character in which they must be written ; and in the 
Gemara, a written Targum on Job, belonging to the middle of the 
first century, is referred to. It has also been conjectured by Pfann- 
kuche 2 that Josephus used Targums; which is quite improbable, for 
the Chaldee was Josephus's native dialect, and he was well educated 
in the biblical Hebrew. A trace of them has also been found in 
Matt, xxvii. 46., where our Lord is thought to have quoted from 
a Targum. But this also is uncertain. It is far more likely that 
he translated at the time into the current dialect the ancient Hebrew 
of Psal. xxii. 1. Perhaps pieces only were written at first. There 
was no complete Targum or translation of a whole book for a while. 
Difficult or important passages received expository remarks in 
writing. Paragraphs were paraphrased ; and out of these Chaldaic 
accompaniments, along with traditional comments not committed to 
writing, the eai-liest written Targums on entire books were first made. 

No existing Targum extends to all the parts of the Old Testament. 
Each embraces a separate portion of the Bible ; and all are in a very 
uncritical state both in regard to the consonants and vowels of their 
texts. They were originally unpointed. Buxtorf first introduced 
a consistent vowel system into them, after the model of that in the 
Chaldee sections of Daniel and Ezra. But though he did so much 
in this respect, he was censured by Simon for not having attained 
the perfection he had intended, as if men can always come up to the 
degree of completeness which they wish to arrive at. The merit of 
Buxtorf will be highly estimated if the anomalous pointing in the 
Venice and other Bibles before his day be considered. Till his time 
there was no system in the points. They had been put capriciously 
and irregularly. Even in the Complutensian and Antwerp Poly- 
glotts, where some labour was spent upon them, they are irregular. 

THE TAEGUM OF ONKELOS 

The accounts of Onkelos are very uncertain. The oldest notices 
represent him as a proselyte and disciple of the elder Gamaliel who 
taught the Apostle Paul, and died not long before the destruction 

1 Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden, p. 61. 

2 In Eichhom's Allgem. Biblioth. vol. viii. p. 427. 



Targums. 7 1 

of the Temple. He must be placed, therefore, in the first century. 
In the Babylonian Talmud he is repeatedly mentioned ; and what 
is there predicated of him is attributed to Aquila, the Greek trans- 
lator in the Jerusalem Talmud. Hence the one has been identified 
with the other. The names, indeed, are nearly the same. Whether 
there be a mistake in this Jewish identification of the two trans- 
lators, or whether they be really one and the same person, we shall 
not decide. We see nothing insuperable against the latter supposition, 
which some learned Jews of the present day adopt. The chief 
argument on which Frankel relies for showing their diversity is, 
that in many passages they differ, and even translate in modes 
directly opposite. 1 To which Graetz 2 replies, that we have no as- 
surance that the fragments of Aquila collected by Montfaucon are 
to be regarded as really his, because through the procedure of 
Origen much that belonged to one translator was often attributed 
to another. But this reply does not fully meet the case ; and the 
more probable view still is, that the two translators, Aquila and 
Onkelos, were different persons. We agree therefore with Frankel 
rather than Graetz. Eichhorn's arguments for his being a Baby- 
lonian, drawn from his being mentioned only in the Babylonian 
Talmud, from the purity of the dialect in which his version is made, 
and its freedom from fabulous legends, must be rejected as unsatis- 
factory. All the ancient accounts respecting Onkelos have been 
collected and published by Anger. 3 

The Targum of Onkelos is on the Pentateuch. The dialect is 
good and pure Chaldee, approaching to the biblical. It contains, 
however, a few Greek words and many obscure expressions which 
were unintelligible to the Talmudists themselves. The translation 
is faithful to the original and literal. Occasionally the author para- 
phrases a little in explaining tropes, as well as in removing anthro- 
pomorphisms and expressions unbecoming to modesty. But he does 
not incorporate foreign elements into the work. His doctrinal ex- 
planations are very simple. It has been observed that he interprets 
only two passages of the Messiah, Gen. xlix. 10. ; Numb. xxiv. 
17., while the later Targums have seventeen Messianic passages. In 
the poetical pieces alone, the author is freer and more paraphrastic, 
introducing additions. These last, however, have been reckoned 
interpolations, an assumption favoured by the fact that all the codices 
do not agree. This Targum is most highly prized by the Jews. It is 
printed in the large Polyglotts as well as the Rabbinical Bibles, and 
has been translated into Latin by Paul Fagius. S. D. Luzzatto 
gives the best disquisition on it. 4 

TARGUM OF JONATHAN BEN UZZIEL. 
Jonathan, th<e son of Uzziel, was the author of a Targum on the 
former and later prophets. He is said to have been a disciple of 

1 t'ber den Einfluss der Palrest. Exeges., u. s. w., p. 15. and elsewhere. 

2 Geschichte der Juden, vol. iv. p. 5 10. 

3 De Onkelo Chaldaico quem ferunt Pentateuehi paraphraste &c, Partic. ii. 

4 Pkiloxenus, s. de Onkelosi Chald. Pentat. versione Dissertat. Herm. Orit. &c. 
1830, Svo. 

F 4 



72 Biblical Criticism. 

HiJlel the elder. If this be true, he lived before Christ, and wrote 
before Onkelos. Zunz, however, infers from the agreement of 
Jonathan with Onkelos in several places (Targ. Judges v. 26., with 
Targ. Deut. xxii. 5. ; Targ. 2 Kings xiv. 6., with Targ. Deut. xxiv. 
16., Targ. Jer. xlviii. 45, 46. with Targ. Numb. xxi. 28, 29.) 
that the former used the latter. 1 If so, he lived after Christ. Haver- 
nick on the contrary infers from these passages that Onkelos was 
acquainted with Jonathan's work, because the tradition embodied 
in the Talmud makes Jonathan the older, because it is probable in 
itself that an interpretation of the prophets was undertaken before 
the Jews ventured to do so with the late, and because the tendency 
towards versions at the time of Gamaliel is in harmony with the 
more liberal character of the man, as he is known from other 
records. 2 In any case, the late date of the third or fourth century 
after Christ, assigned to it by Eichhorn and Jahn, must be dis- 
carded ; for the arguments adduced on behalf of it are insufficient, 
such as the silence of Origen and Jerome ; the incorporation of later 
opinions, Rabbinical sayings and legends ; the impure style. 

Several things betraying a much later period than Jonathan seem 
to have been interpolated. Even Rashi (on Ezek. xlvii. 19.) speaks 
of falsifications of his text, among which Zunz reckons all that is 
hostile to Rome, the mention of Armilus, &c. 3 

The character of the version is less faithful than that of Onkelos. 
It is freer and more paraphrastic. This was allowable in the pro- 
phets, not in the law. Indeed it was almost unavoidable in rendering 
those obscure intimations about the future of Israel. Hence the 
interpretation in the proper prophetical books often becomes haga- 
clical i , or imbued with Rabbinical legends. The historical books 
are rendered more literally than the prophetical, because the latter 
required the interpreter more than the translator. This difference 
affords no valid ground for concluding, with Eichhorn and Bertholdt, 
that the historical and prophetic proceeded from different translators. 
The unity of the translation is shown by internal evidence. Parallel 
passages, like Isa. xxxvi — xxxix. compared with 2 Kings xviii. 
13., &c, Isaiah ii. 2 — 4. and Micah iv. 1 — 3., coincide verbally. 
In the historical books, too, the poetical pieces (Judges v., 1 Sam. ii., 
2 Sam. xxiii.) are furnished with additions strongly resembling one 
another. Comp. Judges v. 8. with Isa. x. 4., 2 Sam. xxiii. 4. 
with Isa. xxx. 26. All the Messianic passages are collected by 
Buxtorf in his Rabbinical and Talmudical Lexicon (p. 1270. et segq.). 
Eichhorn affirms that a polemic tendency against Christianity may 

1 Die Gottesdienstl. Vortrage, u. s. w., p. 63. 2 Einleit, i. 2. p. 78. 

3 Die Gottesdienstl Vortrage, p. 63. 

4 This word is formed from the Jewish term Hagada, which denotes the free, unre- 
strained explanation of Holy Scripture. The Hagada was distinguished from the Halacha 
in that it had no legal character, whereas the Halacha embraces traditional legal determina- 
tions delivered in the form of definite, condensed positions, that they might be retained 
the more readily in the memory. The Halachas were brief, dry sentences embodying 
authorised decisions. The Midrash taught how oral determinations should be drawn 
from the text of Scripture. It is properly the mode of deriving the materials of tradition 
out of the written word. The word is generally applied to the traditional comments 
founded on the text, 



Targums. 73 

be detected in Jonathan; but no effort to explain Christ away 
from Messianic places can be fairly proved. The diction and style 
of this Targum are less pure and elegant than Onkelos's. Yet the 
difference between them is not great. They resemble and ap- 
proximate one another. In consequence of the freer character of the 
version, it is not so valuable in a critical view as the Targum of 
Onkelos. Like the latter, it is printed in the Rabbinical Bibles and 
the Polyglotts. 

THE JERUSALEM TARGUM ON THE PENTATEUCH, OR THAT OF 
PSEUDO-JONATHAN. 

A Targum on the Pentateuch has been ascribed to the same 
Jonathan who translated the prophets. But this must be incorrect. 
The Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan is substantially and originally 
identical with the so-called Jerusalem Targum. Both are recensions 
of one and the same paraphrase, as has been proved by Zunz. 
Frankel, however, has tried to show their diversity, in opposition to 
Zunz. 1 Pseudo- Jonathan is preserved entire — the Jerusalem only 
in fragments. If we compare Onkelos with the Jerusalem Targum, 
we see that the former is only the interpreter occasionally, while the 
Jerusalemite is only the translator occasional^. The Targumist of 
Jerusalem did not mean to set forth Hagadas, much less a com- 
mentary, but to produce a work in which the interpretation of 
Scripture should correspond to the prevailing ideas of the time. 
His production is a loose paraphrase w T ith the prevalent 3Iidrash. 2 

The Pseudo- Jonathan recension is written in an inferior dialect — 
a Palestinian dialect of the Aramaean — and is allied in expression, 
style, and grammar, to the Jerusalem Talmud and the Targums on 
the Hagiographa. The language is impure and barbarous, having 
many foreign words. Of course it is filled with the representations, 
ideas, legends, and fables of a comparatively late period. Most of 
the additions and legends are also in the Talmud. They are not 
peculiar to the interpreter, nor were they excogitated by him, but 
represent merely the culture of his own day and the power of trans- 
mitted ideas. In consequence of these characteristics, as well as his 
mention and use of the Talmud (Exod. xxvi. 9.), the paraphrast 
must be placed in the second half of the seventh century. He 
has used Onkelos with other and freer Targums. Zunz thinks 
that this Jerusalem Targum is younger than the name Constan- 
tinople (Numb. xxiv. 19. 24.), than the establishment of the 
Jewish Calendar, the fall of the Western Pvoman empire, and even 
the Babylonian Gemara; but that it is older than our Masoretic 
text and the extinction of the Aramaean. 3 The Jerusalem Targum, 
as distmguished from that of Jonathan, extends only to single verses, 
often to mere separate words. It appears to have extended to the 
prophets also. Zunz has collected passages mentioning a Targum on 
Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Micah, Habak- 

1 See Einiges zu den Targumim in the Zeit. fiir die rel. Inter, d. Judenth. 1846, 
pp. 111. &c. 

2 See Zunz, p. 72. 3 Die Gottesdienstl. Vortr. pp. 75, 76. 



74 Biblical Criticism. 

kuk, Zechariah; from which he infers that there was a complete 
Jerusalem Targum on all the prophetic books. Of course, this 
Targum, even in the copious recension of Pseudo-Jonathan, can be 
of no use in criticism. Both recensions are given in the London 
Polyglott. 

TAEGUMS ON THE HAGIOGEAPHA. 

These Targums are all of late origin, coinciding in some respects 
with the Jerusalem one ; and their authors are wholly unknown. 
They are — 1. A Targum on Psalms, Job, and Proverbs. The part on 
Proverbs adheres somewhat closely to the original text, and is quite 
free from Hagadas. It has been observed to agree in part with the 
Syriac version, whence Eichhorn and Bertholdt have concluded that 
the latter was used by the paraphrast of Proverbs. Havernick how- 
ever objects to this opinion. 1 Psalms and Job follow the para- 
phrastic manner of Pseudo-Jonathan, coinciding in style and diction 
with the Jerusalem Targum. All three must belong to the same 
period, country, and author. 

2. A Targum on the five Megilloth, i. e. Ruth, Esther, Lament- 
ations, Ecclesiastes, and Solomon's Song. Some have attributed 
this work to Joseph the Blind (f 325), but writers even of the thir- 
teenth century contradict this. It belongs to the post-Talmudic 
period, and can scarcely be called a version. It is rather a Hagadical 
commentary. That on Ruth and Lamentations is superior to the 
rest. Ecclesiastes is more loosely paraphrased, and inserts many 
pious reflections. Canticles is exceedingly diffuse. The text is 
buried under glosses. 

3. The two Targums on Esther, i. e. Targum prius and Targum 
posterius, were translated into Latin by F. Tayler, at London, 1665, 
4to. One of these, the latter, is a Jerusalem paraphrase, part of the 
Jerusalem Targum on the Pentateuch ; and both are of late origin, 
glossarial and diffuse. The Targum prius is printed in the London 
Polyglott. A third on Esther was supposed to be that printed in 
the Antwerp Polyglott. But it is the same with that afterwards 
placed in the London Polyglott by Walton. Both are recensions 
of one and the same text. The Antwerp form of it is briefer, and 
free from fables ; the London Polyglott form is full of silly Rab- 
binical tales. That published by Tayler, called Targum posterius, 
is still more diffuse and insipid. It is, however, a different text from 
the rest. 

4. Last of all, a Targum on Chronicles was discovered in an Er- 
furt MS., and published by Beck in 1680—1683, 4to. ; better by 
Wilkins, at Amsterdam, 1715, 4to., from a Cambridge MS., which 
supplied the imperfections and deficiencies of the other. Its language, 
style, and Hagadical paraphrasing, betray its Jerusalem origin. 

Thus it appears that the Targums form a continued paraphrase on 
the Old Testament, with the exception of Daniel and Ezra (including 
Nehemiah). The reason assigned in the Talmud for Daniel being 

1 Einlcit. i. 2. pp. S6, 87. 



Old Syriac Version. 75 

without such paraphrase, is the revelation in it of the coming of 
Messiah. Far more probable is it, that the Chaldee pieces in these 
books rendered it unnecessary, or that superstition recoiled from 
mixing the holy text of the original with a paraphrase. The con- 
jecture of Prideaux that Targums were composed on these books, 
which have perished in the lapse of ages, is not a happy one. 

The only ones of these Targums that can be used with advantage 
in criticism are those of Onkelos and Ben Uzziel. The former is 
more useful in criticism ; the latter in interpretation. All the rest 
may be safely neglected. 1 



CHAP. XVI. 

OLD SYRIAC VERSION. 



One of the oldest and best versions of the Bible is the Syriac, com- 
monly called Peshito, i. e. simple, literal, verbal, such as follows the 
true sense of the words in contradistinction from allegorical inter- 
pretations. 

As to the time of its origin, the traditions of the Syrians them- 
selves carry it up to a very ancient date, some referring it to the 
period of Solomon and Hiram ; some to Asa the priest when he was 
sent from Assyria to Samaria ; others to the time of Thaddeus the 
Apostle and King Abgarus, when the New Testament part was also 
translated. The oldest testimony respecting it is that of Jacob of 
Edessa, in Bar Hebrams ; and the most probable opinion is, that it 
was made about or later than the middle of the second century, at 
Edessa. The first century, in which many have placed it, is too 
early ; the third is too late. Ephrem, who died a. d. 378, speaks of 
it as if it were the generally received translation among the Syrians 
in his day, calling it our version. Many expressions in it he could 
hardly understand. But this may not have arisen merely from the 
time which had elapsed between its origin and his own day ; the 
difference of dialect may have caused it. The early existence of 
Syrian churches and of a Syrian literature sufficiently attest its an- 
tiquity. 

It has been disputed, whether the translator was a Jew or a 
Christian. Simon thought he was a Jew ; an opinion supported, in 
relation to the Pentateuch at least, by Frankel, Rapoport 2 , and 
Graetz in recent times. More probable is it that he who translated 
the prophets was a Christian, as Kirsch, Michaelis, Bertholdt, Gese- 
nius, Hirzel, Havernick, AViehelhaus, De Wette, and Keil believe. 
This appears from the interpretation of Messianic passages, as Isa. 
vii. 14., Hi. 15., liii. 8.; Zech. xii. 10. 

Another point in which there has been a difference of opinion 

1 See on Targums Havernick's Einleit:. i. 2., De Wette's Einleit. p. 91. et seqq., Zunz's 
Gottesdienstl. Vortrage, and Davidson's Bib. Crit. vol. i. 

2 Biccure ha-Schanak Jahrg. 1844, p. 37., and Erech Millin, p. 254. 



70 Biblical Criticism. 

relates to plurality of authorship. Was the work made by one 
translator, or by several? Eichhorn has adduced various internal 
arguments to show that different persons were employed in it. But 
they are weak. Others have drawn the same conclusion from the 
circumstance that Ephrem, on Josh. xv. 28., speaks in the plural of 
those who translated into Syriac. Little stress can be laid upon this 
loose mode of expression. 

There can be no doubt that the Peshito was made from the ori- 
ginal Hebrew text, to which it adheres for the most part closely 
and faithfully. In this respect it is unlike the Chaldee paraphrases. 
Even when it is not literal but explanatory, — though that is the 
exception, — the most necessary particulars are stated, without bringing 
any extraneous matter into the text. Most of the deviations from 
the Hebrew are found in the Psalms. Not only in the inscriptions, 
but in the text itself, the differences are frequent. This circum- 
stance is to be explained partly by the liturgical use of the Psalter, 
causing alterations to be made in the titles particularly ; and partly 
by the more frequent transcription of a book so much used in public 
worship. Dathe l supposes besides, that the monks having most of 
the Psalter in their memory were not so careful in copying MSS. 
of it. Frequently, there is an affinity to the Septuagint, which 
could not escape the notice of critics. How to account for it, is a 
difficulty which all do not solve in the same manner. Some suppose 
that the Septuagint was employed ; while others deny the as- 
sumption. It is most natural to think that it was consulted, not 
however by the translator or translators, but afterwards. Whether 
these coincidences proceeded from James of Edessa, who is said to 
have undertaken an improvement of the text, may be questioned. Yet 
Michaelis proposes this view to account for some of the more remark- 
able correspondences. According to him, the Syriac accords with 
the Greek more frequently in Ezekiel than in the other books. The 
agreement is also frequent in the Proverbs. The version was occa- 
sionally corrected and interpolated from the LXX. If in difficult 
passages the affinity between the two disappears, that circumstance 
does not disprove the absence of the Septuagint influence elsewhere. 
In some cases also, it approaches near to the Chaldee in such a 
manner as to indicate that the latter was consulted here and there ; 
especially in the prophets, as Credner has shown. 2 

The Peshito embraces only the canonical books of the Old Testa- 
ment. The Syriac of the Apocryphal writings does not belong to it, 
though known to and quoted by Ephrem. It was a later version. 
The Apocryphal additions to Daniel were not in Ephrem's copy. 

This version being used by different ecclesiastical parties, different 
recensions of the text were developed in the progress of time. Qf 
these, we know of the recension belonging to the Nestorians through 
the scholia of Bar Hebraeus, which differed merely in the points. 
There was also the Monophysite recension, called Karhajphensian, i. e. 

1 Psalter. Syr. Proef. p. 29. 

2 De Prophetamm Minorum versionis Syr. quam Pescliito yocant, Indole, &c. p. 107. 
et seqq. 



Old Syriac Version. 77 

mountainous, a name supposed by Wiseman to be derived from its 
birthplace Mount Sigara, where there was a monastery of Jacobite 
Christians. Wiseman conjectures that David, a Jacobite monk who 
resided in the monastery of St. Aaron on Mount Sigara, in the tenth 
century, was the author of the recension in question. The peculiar 
character of it consists in the "following particulars. 

1. The fundamental text of it is the Peshito, very closely allied to 
the pointed text. 

2. It has a peculiar division and order of the books, both in the 
Old and New Testaments. 

3. It differs from the Peshito mainly in this, that proper names 
and Greek- Syriac words are adapted to the Greek or Harclean 
orthography. 

4. It was made for the use of the Jacobites, not the Nestorians. 
The last position is doubted by Lee. 1 

The value of this version in criticism is considerable, both from 
its antiquity and literality. Many good readings deserving of atten- 
tion are found among the number in which it differs from the 
Masoretic text. Yet there is no reason for supposing that the codices 
from which it was made contained any other than the Masoretic text 
substantially. "Whether they were good or bad, correct or incorrect 
at the time, it is needless to inquire. But it is possible to over- 
estimate the version, as Dathe and De Rossi have done. On the 
other hand, it may be unduly depreciated with Bar Hebrams and 
Simon. 

The Peshito is printed in the Paris and London Polyglotts. The 
best edition is that edited for the Bible Society by Dr. S. Lee, 
London, 1823, 4to., for which some MSS. were used. A good 
edition with a critically revised text is still a desideratum. The 
materials for it are not wanting. Besides the large MS. formerly 
brought by Buchanan from India, containing both the Old and New 
Testaments, the Pentateuch part of which was collated by Yeates, 
and other codices collected by the same Christian scholar in his 
Eastern journeys, many better and more ancient copies have since 
been obtained from the Nitrian desert, which are now in the British 
Museum. Among these are old and valuable MSS., out of which 
the text might be greatly improved. It is said that Cureton is pre- 
paring a critical edition of the Old Testament, either entire or 
in part, by the aid of these treasures. 2 

ARABIC VERSIONS FROM THE PESHITO. 

I. That of Job and Chronicles, printed in the Paris and London 
Polyglotts, was made from the Syriac. Those too of Judges, Ruth, 
Samuel, Kings partly (viz. 1 Kings i. — xi. ; 2 Kings xii. 17 — xxv.), 
and Neh. ix. 28 — xiii., were derived from the same source. Ac- 
cording to Rodiger, Judges, Ruth, Samuel and 1 Kings i. — xi. 
were translated by a Christian in the thirteenth or fourteenth cen- 

1 Horns Syriacse, p. 234. et seqq. 

2 See on the Peshito, Havernick's Einleit. i. 2., De Wette's Einleit. p. 98. et seqq., 
Davidson's Bib. Crit. vol. i. chap. 16. 



78 Biblical Criticism. 

tury. 2 Kings xii. 17 — xxv. and Neb. ix. 28 — xiii. proceeded from 
different Christian authors. 

2. Two Arabic translations of the Psalms also belong here, viz. 
that contained in the Syriac edition of the Psalter printed at Mount 
Lebanon in 1585 and 1610, and an unprinted Psalter in the British 
Museum. 

3. There are some Arabic versions of the Pentateuch, of which 
a few notices exist; but they are unprinted. 1 



CHAP. XVII. 

ARABIC TRANSLATIONS. 



Three Arabic versions have been printed. 

1. That of R. Saadias Gaon, a native of Egypt, and afterwards 
president of the Academy at Sora, in Babylonia. His translation is 
paraphrastic and explanatory, resembling Targumic or Rabbinical 
interpretations. It is more useful in the exposition than the cri- 
ticism of the Old Testament, showing very considerable knowledge 
of the Hebrew Scriptures in the tenth century at Babylon. The 
Pentateuch was first published in a Polyglott Pentateuch at Constan- 
tinople, in Hebrew characters, 1546, fob, afterwards in the Paris 
and London Polyglotts. Isaiah was published by Paulus at Iena, 
1790, 1791, 8vo. The text in this latter is corrupted. It has been 
observed by Adler 2 that the version of the Pentateuch, as printed 
in the Paris and London Polyglotts, has an affinity to the Samaritan- 
Arabic. The Book of Job was found by Gesenius in a MS. of the 
Bodleian, and a transcript was made by him ; but only a small piece 
was printed by Stickel. Kimchi quotes the version of Hosea. The 
remaining books have not been discovered. It is most likely that 
Saadias translated all. 

2. In the Polyglotts is an Arabic version of Joshua and of parts 
of the Books of Kings, viz. 1 Kings xii. — 2 Kings xii. 16., made 
by a Jew of the eleventh century; and of Nehemiah i.— ix. 27., 
proceeding in like manner from a Jewish author, but subsequently 
interpolated by a Christian hand from the Peshito. 

3. The Arabic version of the Pentateuch published by Erpenius 
at Leyden, in 1622, was made by an African Jew in the thirteenth 
century, in the vulgar Arabic dialect, from the Masoretic text. 

Besides these, there is a MS. in the British Museum containing 
Genesis, the Psalms, and Daniel, in an Arabic version made by 
Saadias Ben Levi Asnekoth. In the Bodleian is an unprinted 
translation of the Psalms. In the Mannheim Library there is one 
of Genesis in MS. 3 

1 See Keil, Einleit. § 195. 

2 Bibl. Krit. Reise, u. s. w., p. 149. 

3 See De Wette, Einleit. ; Keil, Einleit. ; Havernick, Einleit. ; and Davidson's Bib. 
Crit. vol. i. 



Samaritan Version of the Pentateuch, 79 

ARABIC VERSION OF THE SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH. 

After the Samaritan dialect became extinct, Abu Said, a Sama- 
ritan, made an Arabic version of the Pentateuch for his fellow- 
religionists in Egypt, about the year 1070 a.d. Where the Sama- 
ritan agrees with the Jewish copy, Abu Said followed Saadias, 
frequently word for word; but where the Samaritan departs from 
the Jewish, he follows the Samaritan text, translating it faithfully 
with the aid of the Samaritan version. Like the Chaldee para- 
phrasts, he resolves anthropopathisms, employs euphemisms, and 
makes several minor alterations, especially in proper names. 

But the Samaritans in Syria continued to use the version of 
Saadias even after Abu Said's was circulated. Hence Abul Baracat 
composed scholia on the version of Abu Said, in order to recom- 
mend it to the people and shake the credit of Saadias's version. In 
this manner there arose two recensions of the Arabic- Samaritan 
translation, an Egyptian one by Abu Said, and a Syrian one by 
Abul Baracat. Unfortunately both were soon mixed up together 
in MS., and can no longer be separated. Kuehnen has recently 
published some books at Leyden, 1851, &c. Specimens had been 
previously printed by Hottinger, Castell, Durell, Blanchini, Hwiid, 
Van Vloten, and others. The best critical accounts of it are those 
given by De Sacy, Eichhorn, and especially Juynboll. 1 



CHAP. XVIII. 

SAMARITAN VERSION OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

There is a version of the Samaritan Pentateuch in the Samaritan 
language. It is faithful and literal. The only instances in which 
the translator has not adhered to the words of the Samaritan copy, 
are in paraphrasing the name of Deity, in resolving anthropopathic 
expressions, and in employing euphemisms after the manner of the 
Targums. He frequently agrees with the Targum of Onkelos, 
whence it was inferred by Hottinger and Eichhorn that he made use 
of it. Yet as he does not coincide with Onkelos in difficult pas- 
sages, the agreement may perhaps be explained by the influence of 
the hermeneutical tradition of the Jews on the theology of the 
Samaritans. Still there are certain peculiarities which make it 
difficult to resist the assumption of interpolation. Double readings 
and the variations in MSS. point in this direction. The author and 
ao-e are alike unknown. Modern accounts of the Samaritans them- 
selves make Nathanael the high priest the author ( f 20 B.C.). 
Gesenius supposes it to have been made a few years after the birth 
of Christ, which is, on the whole, the most probable hypothesis ; for 
Juynboll affirms that a Greek translation was made from it in Egypt 
in the second century after Christ. 2 But Havernick reverses the 
1 Comp. the Oricntalia, vol. ii. " Ibid. p. 116. 



80 - Biblical Criticism. 

fact, supposing tliat the Greek- Samaritan version is older than the 
Samaritan. 3 If JuynbolPs opinion be correct, as we believe it is, 
then the Samaritan version must have been in circulation for a con~ 
siderable time before the middle of the second century. Frankel 
strangely brings down its origin to the time after Mohammed. 4 It 
is printed in the Paris and London Polyglotts, but incorrectly. 

PERSIAN VERSION. 

A Persian translation of the Pentateuch was executed by Jacob, 
son of Joseph Tawus a Jew. It follows the Masoretic text lite- 
rally and closely, in the manner of Aquila, adopting Hebrew con- 
structions opposed to the genius of the Persian language, and many 
Hebrew words, but explaining difficult places after Onkelos, and 
coinciding occasionally with Saadias also. According to Rosen- 
miiller 3 , it could not have been made before the ninth or tenth 
century, because Babel, in Gen.x. 10., is explained Bagdad, which 
city was not built till A. D. 762. And Tawus is usually interpreted 
Tus, a city in Chorasan, where there - was a celebrated Jewish 
academy. But Lorsbach explains it otherwise, and dates the version 
in the sixteenth century. 4 

This translation was first printed in the Polyglott Pentateuch of 
Constantinople, published in 1546, fob, in Hebrew letters. Out of 
this it was transcribed in the Persian characters by Hyde, who, 
having supplied the chasms, accompanied it with a Latin version, 
and transferred it to the London Polyglott. 



CHAP. XIX. 

VULGATE VERSION. 



While Jerome was employed in revising the versio vetus, he 
resolved to make a new Latin translation from the Hebrew. To 
this he was urged by the advice of various friends. He began 
accordingly the arduous undertaking after the year 385, with the 
books of Samuel and Kings. After these he translated all the 
prophets, the four greater and the twelve lesser ones. To these 
succeeded Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and Canticles; next Job, the 
Psalms, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. Some years after, he 
translated the Pentateuch, which was shortly followed by Joshua, 
Judges, Ruth, and Esther; and to make the work more complete 
he also rendered Tobit and Judith. The former he translated in 
one day, by the help of a Jewish teacher who interpreted the 
Chaldee in Hebrew words, Jerome dictating the Latin to a quick 
writer. The latter he translated himself, after he had acquired 
some knowledge of Chaldee. He found the books of Maccabees in 

1 Einleit. i. 2. pp. 110, 111. 

2 See the Verhandll. d. ersten Versamml. Deutscher u. ausll. Orientalisten, p. 10. 

3 De Versione Pentateuchi Persica, &c. p. 4. et seqq. 
* In the Jena Allgem. Lit. Zeit. for 1816, No. 58. 



Vulgate Version. 81 

Hebrew, as also Ecclesiasticus ; but he rendered neither into Latin. 
As to the Apocryphal additions to Esther, Daniel, and Jeremiah, he 
retained them, with marks expressing his disapprobation. Thus all 
the Apocrypha, except Tobit and Judith, was retained from the old 
Latin or ante-Hieronymian. The whole work was completed a.d. 
405, having been executed at intervals, part after part. Accorcling 
to his own statement in the preface to Isaiah, his object was an apolo- 
getic one. He wished to stop the cavils of the Jews against the 
LXX., and so assist Christians in their controversies with them. 

There is no doubt that Jerome had a good knowledge of the He- 
brew language. He had been instructed in it by Jews, and had 
laboured very diligently to overcome the inherent difficulties of the 
study. He was therefore well prepared, as far as an acquaintance 
with the original language was concerned, for the task he undertook. 
He had also accurate Hebrew copies from which to translate. Be- 
sides, he made use of the exegetical tradition of the Jews, as well as 
earlier translations. Of the latter he mentions the LXX., Aquila, 
Theodotion, Symmachus. The principles on which he proceeded 
were right and excellent, for he avoided, on the one hand, too great 
literality, which is liable to become unintelligible, and on the other, 
arbitrary departures from the original. What he aimed at was, to 
give the sense clearly and distinctly. Possessing such qualifications, 
and following such principles, he produced a version which far ex- 
ceeded in value any preceding one ; and which we may safely affirm 
none of the fathers, save himself, could have executed. Had he not 
proceeded with too much haste in rendering some books, and suffered 
frequent interruptions from sickness and other causes, he might have 
accomplished a better work. He confesses, for example, that he 
rendered Solomon's writings, viz. Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and Can- 
ticles, in three days. Another circumstance that detracted from the 
value of the version was his fear of innovations ; or rather of being 
charged with innovation. In consequence of this, he sometimes 
sacrificed his better judgment to ancient authority. He was timid ; 
afraid of being deemed heretical. 

Notwithstanding the merits of this version, and the cautious man- 
ner in which Jerome proceeded, his work did not escape animad- 
version. Its departures from the LXX. which was then regarded 
with superstitious feelings, and from the Vetus the offspring of the 
LXX., rendered it obnoxious to the majority of his contemporaries. 
The passionate Rufinus accused him of heresy and falsification of 
Scripture. Even Augustine had scruples, and joined to some ex- 
tent in blaming the author. But he was afterwards induced by 
Jerome's defence to express approval of and to employ the new 
version. 1 All his contemporaries, however, did not frown upon the 
production. Some bishops and churches received it favourably. It 
was better treated by the Greek church ; the patriarch Sophronius 
rendering the version of the Psalms and Prophets into Greek. 

Gaul was the first country in which it got into ecclesiastical 

1 See his treatise, De Doctrina Christiana, iv. 7. 
VOL. II. G 



82 Biblical Criticism. 

use. Hence we read of the praises bestowed on it in the works 
of Cassian, Eucherius of Lyons, Vincent of Lerins, Salvian of Mar- 
seilles, and others. In consequence chiefly of Gregory the Great 
using it in his commentary on Job, along with the old Latin, it 
soon obtained currency and credit in Rome and other churches of 
the West, so that it gradually came to have universal ascendancy 
and to supplant the old Latin. About 200 years after Jerome's 
death, it was the universal Church version. Since the seventh cen- 
tury, it has always been used exclusively in the Roman Church, 
with the exception of the Psalms, which, being previously set to 
music, made it difficult to have alterations introduced into them. 
Hence the old Latin Psalter as corrected by Jerome has been 
employed since Gregory the Great. The apocryphal books, Baruch, 
Ecclesiasticus, Wisdom, and Maccabees, are retained from the versio 
vetus. The name Vulgate version was given to it from the time it 
was universally adopted by the Romish communion. 

Owing to a variety of influences, the text of this version became 
corrupt at an early period. The old Latin was used along with it 
for a considerable time, and exerted an injurious effect upon the text 
of the new version, causing numerous alterations both intentional 
and undesigned. Half-learned monks introduced into their MSS. 
glosses from other copies, from parallel passages of the Bible, from 
liturgical books, the other writings of Jerome, and even from the 
Septuagint and Josephus. Great critical caprice and ignorance were 
evinced by such arbitrary procedure on the part of copyists. The 
text was disfigured with additions and alterations, so that the ne- 
cessity of critical emendation was felt by all scholars. 

About the year 802, Alcuin, at the command of Charlemagne, 
undertook to revise the text, but on what principles it is difficult to 
discover. We do not think with Hody, that he employed the ori- 
ginal languages and MSS. Porson is more correct in believing that 
he employed MSS. alone. 1 

In the eleventh century, Lanfranc Archbishop of Canterbury, 
made another revision of the text ; and in the twelfth, Cardinal 
Nicolaus. About the same time, appeared the Epanorthota or 
Correctoria Biblica, whose object was to secure a correct Bible text, 
somewhat in the manner of the Masorah. The text of the Vulgate 
was furnished with glosses from other copies, as also from the writ- 
ings of the older fathers and other distinguished teachers in the 
church, with emendations after the original, remarks on peculiari- 
ties of language, interpunction, and such like particulars. These 
correctoria or notes were made by monks and learned men in order 
to prevent the corruption of the text. The oldest known is that 
made by the Cistercian abbot Stephen, about 1150. It is obvious, 
however, that this remedy was but partial and incomplete. Its 
nature was more exegetical than critical. The evil was too deeply 
seated to be cured by so imperfect an application. The good done 
by all the correctoria must have been comparatively little. A brief 

1 Letters to Travis., p. 145. 



Vulgate Version. 83 

specimen of a correctorium, printed at Cologne in 1508, is given by 
Carpzov. 1 

When the Vulgate was printed, the varieties of the text appeared 
in a striking light. Different editions taken from different MSS. 
presented many variations. Critical editions especially, with emend- 
ations after the original text and lists of various readings, proved 
how corrupt the text had become. 

The first edition with the name of the place and year appeared at 
Mainz, 1462. The first critical edition was that of J. Parvus 
(Petit) and Thielmann Kerver, Paris, 1504, fol. with various read- 
ings by Adrian Gumelli. The edition in the Complutensian Poly- 
glott was taken from MSS. The best early critical editions are 
those of Robert Stephens, Paris, 1528, 1532, fol; 1534, 8vo.; 1540, 
1545, 1546, 1555, 8vo., with the division into verses both in the 
Old and New Testaments ; 1557 fol. 1565. The finest and best of 
these editions is that of 1540, folio. In making it Stephens vised 
fifteen MSS. and three ancient editions. The marginal notes are 
fewer than in the preceding editions ; but the text is more correct. 
Stephens was censured by the Paris theologians on account of the 
alleged errors contained in his editions of the Vulgate. To these 
he replied, after he had taken up his abode at Geneva. Isidore 
Clarius amended the text very carefully " after the Hebrew and 
Greek verity," Venice, 1542, fol. This edition was prohibited, and 
denied to contain the text of the Vulgate. It was reprinted in 
1557 and 1564. In the preface the editor says that eight thousand 
places were annotated and amended by him. 

After long debates in the council of Trent respecting the Vul- 
gate, a decree was enacted in the fourth session, pronouncing the 
Vulgate authentic, an epithet whose meaning has been much con- 
tested between Protestants and Catholics. 2 Perhaps it means no 
more than authorised, authoritative. The council also decreed that 
the Vulgate should be printed as correctly as possible. In the year 
after the council, the Louvain divines endeavoured to produce an 
amended text, 1547, fol., with a preface by John Hentenius. In 
this valuable edition, Hentenius and his associates availed them- 
selves of Stephens's labours in the same direction. The Louvain 
text was often reprinted. An amended edition was prepared by the 
same divines and published in 1573, Antwerp, 3 vols. 8vo., under 
the superintendence of Lucas Brugensis. 

These private editions, however, were thought insufficient to 
satisfy the demand of the decree. Hence the pope himself • under- 
took the task of preparing the required authentic edition. In 
1564, Pius IV. with his cardinals began to collect and collate 

1 Critica Sacra, p. 686. 

2 " Insuper eadem sacrosancta Synodus considerans, non parum utilitatis accedere 
posse ecclesice Dei, si ex omnibus Latinis editionibus quae circumferuntur, saerorum 
librorurn, qusenam pro authentica habenda sit, innotescat : statuit et declarat, ut hsec ipsa 
vetus et vulgata editio, quas longo tot seculorum usu in ipsa ecclesia probata est, in 
publicis lectionibus, disputationibus, prcedicationibus, et exposicionibus, pro authentica 
habeatur ; et ut nemo illam rejicere quovis pratextu audeat vel prsesumat." Sessio iv. 
can. 2. 

G 2 



84 Biblical Criticism. 

ancient MSS. The preparation of materials was continued by 
his successor, Pius V. Under Gregory XIII. nothing was done ; 
but Sixtus V. resumed and completed the work, which was 
published at Rome in one volume folio, 1590. In the accompany- 
ing papal bull, the text is declared to be that very one which was 
the object of inquiry in the council of Trent. It is the true, legiti- 
mate, authentic text. l But the edition of Sixtus was soon with- 
drawn, being found very incorrect. He himself in correcting the 
press discovered many mistakes, which he either removed by means 
of the pen, or by pasting small pieces of paper over the wrong 
words, with the right readings upon them. Gregory XIV., Sixtus's 
successor, did not live long enough to prepare another ; but that 
was done by Clement VIII., who published his in 1592. The pre- 
face to this latter was written by Bellarmine, and contains, by the 
admission of Catholic scholars themselves, some incorrect state- 
ments. It was a difficult task to account for the appearance of the 
latter edition and not infringe upon the infallibility of Sixtus. The 
two copies differ in very many places, presenting even contradictory 
readings. Sixtus excommunicated any one who should dare to alter 
his in the least ; but Clement had no fear of the papal prohibition ; 
and therefore Protestants have founded an argument on the two 
editions against papal infallibility. 

The differences between the two editions were carefully collected 
by Thomas James (Bellum Papale), in 1 600, 4to. ; as also by Pros- 
per Marchand, in Schelhorn's Amcenitates Litteraria, vol. iv. A few 
examples of the discrepancies may suffice. 

Sixtine Edition. Clementine Edition. 

Genesis ii. 12. ibique invenitur. Ibi invenitur 

15. in paradisum voluptatis. in paradiso voluptatis. 

esse hominem solum, 
cui dixit : 
herbam. 

Uxor in domo viri cum se voto constrinxerit 
et juramento, si audierit vir et tacuerit, 
nee contradixerit sponsioni reddet quod- 
cunque promiserat; sin autem exemplo 
contradixerit, non tenebitur promissionis 
rea : quia maritus contradixit et dominus 
ei propitius erit si voverit et juramento se 
constrixerit 
2 Kings vi. 13. Immolabat bovem et ovem Immolabat bovem et arietem et David 
et arietem et David per- saltabat 
cutiebat in organis armi- 
gatis et saltabat 
ix. 26. Pro sanguine Naboth, quern Si non pro sanguine Naboth, et pro san- 
vidi heri ait dominus guine filiorum, quem vidi heri, ait dominus, 
sanguinem filiorum ejus reddam tibi in agro isto dicit dominus. 
reddam tibi in agro isto Nunc 
dominus. Nunc 
1 Sam. iii. 2, 3. Nee poterat videre lucer- Nee poterat videre ; lucerna Dei antequam 
nam Dei antequam ex- extingueretur. 
tingueretur. 

A second edition was published in 1593, Rome, 4to. It differs from 
the preceding. Another, the third, appeared in 1598, 4to., carefully 

1 " Vera, legitima, authentica, et indubitata, &c." 



18. 


hominem esse. 




iii. 11. 


cui dixit Dominus : 




18. 


herbas 




). XXX. 1 1 . 


Uxor in domo viri 


si vo- 




verit, et juramento 


>e con- 




strixerit. 





Versions from the Vulgate. 85 

edited, and with errata for those of 1592 and 1593. The Clementine 
edition is the basis of all succeeding ones. 

The text of the Vulgate still needs revision. A good critical edi- 
tion, with the various readings of the best and oldest MSS., is a 
desideratum. Learned Roman Catholics could supply the want most 
successfully, but we fear they are too much trammelled to undertake 
it in the true spirit of impartial criticism. 

The value of this version in the criticism of the Bible is great. 
Being faithful and accurate for the most part, it must preserve many 
good and true readings. It is much older than any Hebrew MS. 
now existing. Protestants, in so long depreciating it out of polemic 
motives, neglected an important document in biblical criticism, as 
well as interpretation. But it has risen in estimation in modern 
times, especially since Lachmann was careful to procure a good text 
of it for his large critical edition of the Greek Testament. In the 
Old Testament, it is of equal importance. A pure text of it would 
agree for the most part with the Masoretic Hebrew. Even in its 
present state, with all its corruptions, it generally coincides with the 
Masoretic text. 1 



CHAP. XX. 

VERSIONS MADE FROM THE VULGATE. 

ANGLO-SAXON VEESION. 

The earliest accounts of translations of the Scriptures into Anglo- 
Saxon do not reach beyond the eighth century. In 706 Adhelm, 
Bishop of Sherborne, translated the Psalter into Saxon. Perhaps 
this is the Psalter published by Thorpe, at Oxford, 1835, 8vo., from 
a MS. in the Royal Library at Paris. Not long after, the venerable 
Bede rendered the whole Bible into the same language. King Alfred 
had undertaken a translation of the Psalms, but died before it was 
completed. .ZElfric, in the tenth century, translated several books, 
the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Job, part of Kings, Esther, Macca- 
bees. Of these, the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, and Job were pub- 
lished by Thwaites, at Oxford, 1699. Eichhorn and Bertholdt erro- 
neously say that this version was made from the LXX. It is from 
the Vulgate. Alfred's translation of the Psalter, with the inter- 
lineary Latin text, was published by Spelman, at London, 1640, 4to. 
There is another Anglo-Saxon Psalter in a MS. belonging to the 
Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth. But the entire Anglo-Saxon 
version of the Bible has never been printed. It is of use in ascer- 
taining the true readings of the Vulgate. 

The Vulgate has often been translated into Arabic for the use of 
the Romish Christians in the East. Thus the entire Bible was 
printed at the Propaganda press, at Rome, 1671, 3 vols, folio. 

1 For the Vulgate, see Leander Van Ess, Pragmatisch-Kritische Geschicht. der 
Vulgata ; and Davidson's Bib. Crit,, vol. i. chap. 1 8. 

G 3 



86 Biblical Criticism. 

Several other Arabic versions from the same source are still im- 
printed. The Vulgate has also been translated into Persian. Two 
Persian Psalters in MS. were known to Walton. 



CHAP. XXI. 

RULES FOR USING VERSIONS. 



In using ancient versions for critical purposes, the following rules or 
observations should be followed : — 

1. Care should be taken to have as correct a text of each version 
as can be procured. It is well knoAvn that most versions have suf- 
fered in the lapse of time. They should be used in the purest state 
possible. Here it is safer to have various editions of the same ver- 
sion, where they can be procured, than to rely solely on one. It is 
unfortunate that almost all the versions are very corrupt. 

2. Having procured one or more of the best editions of each ver- 
sion, it must not be taken for granted at once that every departure 
of an interpreter from the ordinary Hebrew text is a various reading. 
Sometimes what may be taken for a various reading is only the 
result of the free manner of the translator. The method followed by 
each translator should be carefully kept in view, else it may be 
thought, in many instances, that he had in the original copy from 
which he translated a different reading from the present one. Here 
many mistakes have been committed even by good critics. Indeed 
great tact and discrimination are required to prevent errors. Thus 
Lowth supposes that imilJ in Isa. iii. 25. was read by the LXX., 
Vulgate, Syriac, and Chaldee TlllJ, because they rendered the word 
thy mighty men. But they merely translated the abstract noun by a 
concrete. The same critic thinks that the LXX. and Syriac read 
niT twice in Isa. xi. 7. because they have twice expressed it. But 
they merely did so to fill up the sense. 

3. A version made literally from the Hebrew is more useful for 
criticism than one in which the interpreter studied purity and per- 
spicuity. Thus the translation of Aquila is most valuable. 

4. That ancient interpreter is to be preferred in criticism who 
evinces knowledge of the languages he has to do with, skill in trans- 
lating, and carefulness in adhering to the original ; whereas he has 
less authority who evinces comparative ignorance, unskilfulness, and 
negligence in his work. 

5. When an ancient version has been interpolated from another, its 
authority is greatly lessened. 

6. The more ancient a version, the more valuable it is, ceteris 
paribus. Hence the Septuagint is of great authority, because of its 
age. So too are Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, the Syriac, On- 
kelos, Jonathan, and the Vulgate. 

7. The greater the number of ancient versions that support a 
reading, the greater probability is there of its originality. 



Rules for using Versions. 87 

8. WLen they differ from one another, that reading must be pre- 
ferred which, besides having the most weighty testimonies on its 
side, agrees best with the genius of the writer and with the context. 

9. A various reading taken from one or more versions may be the 
true one, though destitute of the support of MSS. 

We fear that these rules, obvious though they be, and apparently 
easy to be followed, will not suffice to prevent critics from drawing 
false conclusions respecting the readings found in versions. No rules 
will make a good critic. In some cases they may keep him from 
error, and that is all. Much more depends on the judgment and 
taste of individuals, their knowledge and perception, than upon 
formal canons. Hence it may happen that such as admit the 
correctness of all the observations we have proposed as guides and 
cautions, may immediately blunder as soon as they begin to apply 
them. 

We shall conclude our remarks on versions with examples of their 
improper and proper use. Thus in Prov. xviii. 22., Whoso jindeth a 
ioife,findeth a good thing. Kennicott and others read, Whoso Jindeth 
a good wife, jindeth a good thing, since the Septuagint, Syriac, and 
Vulgate insert the epithet good before wife. But there is no reason 
for supposing that the authors of these versions found in the Hebrew 
a word corresponding to good. They inserted it to complete the 
sense in their own way. They added it to bring out, as they sup- 
posed, the right meaning more clearly. 

The same remarks apply to Gen. 1. 25., where after, ye shall carry 
up my bones from hence, the LXX., Syriac, and Vulgate add, with 
you. The addition forms no part of the original text, having been 
inserted by the translators to fill up the sense, probably from the 
parallel in Exod. xiii. 19. A few MSS. and the Samaritan Penta- 
teuch add no weight to the reading. It is not, in fact, a true various 
reading. 

Equally erroneous is it to suppose, on the authority of ancient 
versions, that the word two should be inserted in Gen. ii. 24., And 
they shall be one flesh. The New Testament, which has two, resolves 
itself into the LXX. The fathers that employ it cpaoted from the 
same version. Another example of the same kind is in Exod. vi. 20., 
where, after the words, she bare him Aaron and Moses, the LXX. 
and Syriac add, and Miriam, their sister. 

Another example like the preceding is Isa. xl. 5., All flesh shall see 
together, viz., the glory of God just spoken of. Here, because the 
sentence appears to be imperfect, and because the LXX. read to 
awrrjpLov rod dsov, the salvation of God, Lowth and others would alter 
■nm into ij?^''!. But the Septuagint formed the version here after the 
parallel passage, Hi. 10. ; and the text should not be changed. 

Another similar example is 1 Sam. ix. 7., What shall we bring the 
man, where, after the word man, all the ancient versions read, DTPNn 
of God. Here the versions are not independent. The supplement is 
one of the very many added by the LXX. translators. 

A still more glaring blunder is committed by those who, on the 
sole authority of the Septuagint, take the clause, And God saio that 



88 Biblical Criticism. 

it ivas good, from Gen. i. 10, and place it in the eighth, verse. In the 
Septuagint, at the eighth verse, it is an instance among many others 
of a supplement taken from parallel passages by the revisers of the 
Greek text. It does not belong to the translator himself. 1 

But, on the other hand, the LXX. probably lead to the true read- 
ing in Hab. i. 5., where they have oi Kara^povrjrai for the Hebrew 
D^iaa, which latter yields an indifferent sense. If we read dHIQ, we 
have probably the original word represented by the Greek one. The 
alteration from D^lJ3 into DMJn is easily made. The top of the daleth 
has only to be diminished. The quotation of the Greek version in 
the Acts sanctions and confirms the reading indicated by it ; and as 
the Syriac is similar to the Septuagint, its authority is on the same 
side. 



CHAP. XXII. 



HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS. 



Another source of criticism is Hebrew MSS. These have been 
divided into two classes, autographs and apographs. The former, 
written by the original authors themselves, have long ago perished. 
The latter, taken from the autographs, and multiplied by repeated 
transcription, exist in considerable numbers. But the more ancient 
of them have been destroyed many ages ago ; and therefore the 
more recent alone are all that remain. Numerous MSS. are in exist- 
ence, but they are comparatively modern. 

The MSS. now extant present, with a very few exceptions, the 
Masoretic text, and therefore agree. A few unimportant deviations 
constitute the variations among them. But the older ones contain 
the Masoretic form of the text in a more exact state than the modern. 
They may probably retain the ante-Masoretic text for substance, 
having preserved it unaltered from early times. Their general agree- 
ment with the younger copies, which are completely cast in the Ma- 
soretic mould, may be accounted for by the fact, that the Masorah did 
not change but preserve the most ancient text. 

All existing MSS. are divided into two classes, sacred and common; 
or synagogue rolls and common or private copies. These latter again 
are subdivided according as they are written in the square character 
or the rabbinical. 

1. Synagogue rolls. — These contain the Pentateuch alone, which 
was read in the Jewish synagogues from their first establishment 
and was always held in the highest veneration by the Jews. Great 
pains were taken to have the rolled manuscripts as accurate as 
possible, for which end various rules were made to guide the persons 
who prepared them. In consequence of regulations minute, trifling, 
superstitious, the synagogue rolls are uniform, hardly differing one 

1 See Frankel, ilber den Einfluss, u. s. w., p. 60. 



Hebrew Manuscripts. 89 

from another. As to the date of these prescriptions, it is unknown. 
They are not all of the same age, but increased in number with the 
progress of time. Some of them probably reach up to the time of 
the Babylonian Talmud, though the earliest written treatise where 
they appear is in the Tract. Sopherim, which, though printed with 
the Babylonian Talmud, is not so old, and does not form a proper 
part of it. The chief of these regulations are the following. 

A synagogue roll must be written on the skins of clean animals, 
prepared for the particular use of the synagogue by a Jew. These 
must be fastened together with strings taken from clean animals. 
Every skin must contain a certain number of columns equal through- 
out the entire codex. The length of each column must not extend 
over less than forty-eight, or more than sixty lines ; and the breadth 
must consist of thirty letters. The whole copy must be first lined ; 
and if three words be written in it without a line, it is worthless. 
The ink should be black, neither red, green, nor any other colour ; 
and be prepared according to a definite receipt. An authentic copy 
must be the exemplar, from which the transcriber ought not in the 
least to deviate. No word or letter, not even a yod, must be written 
from memory, the scribe not having looked at the codex before him. 
The square character is that used in synagogue rolls, without vowel 
points and accents. The consonants pr:>Dy r .y must have the pre- 
scribed ornaments (p^fi). The extraordinary points are to be inserted 
in their proper places ; and the consonants of unusual forms to be 
put, viz., the so-called liter a majusculce, minusculce, suspense, in- 
verse. Words are not to be divided at the end of lines ; and in two 
poetical pieces (Exodus xv., Deuteronomy xxxii.) they are to be 
written in such hemistichs (an^ol) as the Tract. Sopherim prescribes. 
Between every consonant the space of a hair or thread must inter- 
vene; between every word the breadth of a narrow consonant; 
between every new parshiah or section, the breadth of T^K written 
three times, or of nine consonants ; between every book, three lines. 
The fifth book of Moses must terminate exactly with a line ; but the 
rest need not do so. Besides this, the copyist must sit in full Jewish 
dress, wash his whole body, not begin to write the name of God with 
a pen newly dipped in ink, and should a king address him while 
writing that name he must take no notice of him. 

The revisal of the Torah or synagogue copy, must take place as 
soon as the copying is finished, and be completed within thirty days. 
Three mistakes on a page may be tolerated ; but should there be 
four, or a mistake in the sections open or closed, or in the position of 
the poetical pieces that are to be written in hemistichs, the whole 
is vitiated. AMiether an error in the name of God renders a copy 
unfit for public use, is a disputed point among the Jews. The rolls 
in which these regulations are not observed are condemned to be 
buried in the ground or burned ; or they are banished to the schools, 
to be used as reading-books. The Haphtaroth or prophetic sections, 
and five Megilloth, are on separate rolls. 1 

1 See Eichhorn, Einleit. vol. ii. p. 458. et seqq. 



90 Biblical Criticism. 

Painful and superstitious as most of these regulations are, they 
have been useful in ensuring greater accuracy in the text of the 
Pentateuch. In consequence of their influence, it has been kept 
generally free from deterioration. Not many various readings can 
be derived from the rolled copies before us. If they do not present 
exactly the original text, they contain it substantially. They give a 
close approximation to it — so close, that we may gratefully accept it 
as the primitive text. 

2. Private MSS. in the square character. — These are in different 
forms, folio, quarto, octavo, duodecimo ; and their material is mostly 
parchment, sometimes eastern paper, and even common paper. The 
consonants are written with black ink, prepared much in the same 
way as the ink prescribed for the Torah. But the vowels and the 
smaller writing in the margin, are made with other and various inks. 
The consonants are formed with a broad, thick pen ; the vowels and 
smaller writing with a fine one. Yet there are exceptions ; for 
occasionally the text and points are alike black, even though the 
writer of the consonants was a different person from the vowel- or 
point-writer. Gold and beautiful colours are often used for deco- 
rating initial words and letters. A single MS. at Leyden, a Psalter, 
has the vowels and accents in red ink. 

In most MSS. the columns, lines, and consonants, external and 
internal upper and lower margins, are carefully divided and arranged 
so as to bear a mutual proportion. No page has more than four 
columns, the precise number usually depending on the breadth of 
the MS. or the judgment of the transcriber. And the number of 
columns is not always the same through an entire MS. Poems 
and the metrical books are often written in hemistichs. These 
columns contain, sometimes the Hebrew text alone, sometimes the 
same text with a version. Sometimes the same Hebrew text is 
written in two parallel columns, one pointed, the other unpointed. 

A Chaldee paraphrase oftenest accompanies the text, written 
either in a column beside it, or between it. More rarely is an 
Arabic version added to the text. Some MSS. have the Vulgate 
with the original ; others a Persian translation. 

The breadth of the lines is accidental, as well as their number on 
a page. The size of the upper and lower margin, reserved for the 
Masorah, is commonly determinate and fixed. This upper and 
lower margin is occupied by the great Masorah, which is often 
wound into curious and fantastic figures. Sometimes Jewish 
prayers, psalms, sections out of the law, are found there. Again, 
the commentary of a Rabbin is often in the same place, instead of 
■ the Masorah. The external margin is for corrections of the text, 
commentaries of Rabbins, palseographical, critical, and exegetical 
scholia, for the notification of the haphtaroth and parshioth, for 
showing what haphtaroth and parshioth are to be read together on 
one Sabbath, for designating the middle of books, for variations, for 
all kinds of figures twisted and made up of texts, prayers, psalms, 
and other sections of the Old Testament. To the inner margin 
between the columns, belong the Kri and the little Masorah. 



Hebrew Manuscripts. 91 

The various books are separated by spaces between them, except 
the books of Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. 
Daniel Bomberg separated these in his edition, according to the 
Vulgate. The parshioth and haphtaroth are for the most part care- 
fully marked, but in different ways. 

With regard to the arrangement of the prophets, German MSS. 
follow the Talmud, according to which Isaiah comes after Jere- 
miah and Ezekiel ; the Spanish again, the Masorah, according to 
which Isaiah precedes Jeremiah and Ezekiel. In the German 
codices, the Hagiographa stands thus : Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Can- 
ticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, 
Chronicles. But in the Spanish codices they are arranged after the 
Masorah; Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Huth, Canticles, 
Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra. Sometimes, how- 
ever, MSS. follow a peculiar arrangement agreeing neither with 
the Talmudic nor Masoretic one. 

The square character in which all known MSS. are written is 
pretty nearly one and the same. Yet the Jews themselves speak 
of a twofold distinction in the square character, the Tarn and the 
Velshe writing. The former is distinguished by pointed corners and 
perpendicular coronulce or taggin ; the latter, which is younger than 
the Tarn according to the Jews, is rounder in the body-strokes of 
the consonants ; and the coronuke terminate in a thick point. Both 
are usual in synagogue rolls, though not limited to them. It has 
been thought the Polish and German Jews used the Tarn ; the 
Spanish and oriental Jews, the Velshe. 

Modern critics have also distinguished between a Spanish, a 
German, a French and Italian character. The Spanish is regular, 
square, and well proportioned ; the German is more inclined, with 
pointed corners. The French and Italian is intermediate, somewhat 
smaller, more round than pointed. 

Most copies passed through -several hands, such as the consonant- 
writer or sopher, the person who put the vowel-points and accents, 
the reviser, the Masorah-writer, the scholiast, the retoucher or fresh- 
ener. One person, however, often united several of these employ- 
ments. But the text and the points were always written sepa- 
rately, the latter being begun only after the former had been com- 
pleted. The consonant-writer himself undertook at times the punc- 
tuation. The diversity of the sopher and punctuator may be detected 
by the disagreement of the punctuation and consonant-text, or by 
a subscription at the end, or by a different ink. From the punc- 
tuator the 'kris in the margin regularly proceeded. Again, the con- 
sonant-writer was occasionally his own reviser or corrector. Gene- 
rally speaking, the person who put the vowel-points was the corrector 
also, though there are many exceptions. Occasionally the Masorah- 
Avriter was the corrector. The Masorah-writer was in many MSS. 
the same with the sopher and punctuator. A punctuator different 
from the sopher often put the great and little Masorah. Sometimes 
the Masorah proceeded from a person different from the sopher and 
punctuator. Occasionally, but not often, the sopher became scholiast 



92 Biblical Criticism^ 

to himself in the margin, correcting or explaining what he had writ- 
ten. But these critical and explanatory remarks oftener correct 
what the punctuator wrote. The freshener retouched with ink 
faded words and letters, though by that means he often effaced an 
old reading. 1 

The age of MSS. is determined by the subscriptions belonging to 
them. But this is not the only purpose these subscriptions serve. By 
giving the name of the copyist, sometimes too of the punctuator and 
Masorah- writer, the name of the individual for whom they were writ- 
ten, the country or place, the name or names of the succeeding pos- 
sessors, as well as the number of years, they furnish materials for 
judging of the quality of their text. Few codices however have 
subscriptions. This calamity is owing in part to the fact that most 
of them consisted of several volumes, which were often separated by 
the accidents of time, and the last, containing the subscription, lost 
altogether. Even when a MS. has a subscription, it is not unfre- 
quently difficult to find it. Sometimes it is put into the Masorah or 
in another concealed place ; sometimes it is wound up into a figure. 
And when an inscription, not discoverable at first sight because out 
of its proper place, has been found, it cannot always be safely used. 
An error may he in the number of years ; the era by which the num- 
ber of years is reckoned may be omitted ; the hundreds or the thou- 
sands may be left out. If the name of the transcriber only is affixed, 
it is insufficient to determine the age of the codex unless he be cele- 
brated in Rabbinical literature. Lastly, the possessor of a MS., in 
order to enhance its value when he wished to sell it, affixed to it a 
new subscription, or altered something in the old one, erased, re- 
touched it to conceal his deception. This is the reason that some 
codices have two or three subscriptions with different and even con- 
tradictory dates. And not only were subscriptions made to bear an 
older date than they had at first, they were also made to bear a 
younger one. When a Jew possessed a codex by inheritance, he 
might readily give the idea to others by a false subscription that he 
had either copied the codex himself or got it copied at his expense. 
The Talmudic regulation enjoins one or other alternative — writing 
a manuscript himself or getting it written — upon every Jew. 

In consequence of the uncertainty attaching to the external testi- 
mony afforded by subscriptions, towards the age of MSS., the evi- 
dence furnished by internal marks has been resorted to. But these 
are likewise insecure. They are : — 

1. The elegance and simplicity of the character, which are pro- 
nounced marks of a considerable antiquity. But certain artificial or- 
naments are very old; and Spanish copyists have always had a disin- 
clination to ornamental additions. A modern Spanish codex may be 
as much distinguished for simplicity of character as any other. 

2. A MS. with no Masorah, or with a very imperfect one, has the 
impress of antiquity. But the Masorah was never reckoned an essen- 
tial part of a MS. Some of the oldest have it. 

1 Eichhora, Einleit. vol. ii. p. 467. et seqq. 



Hebrew Manuscripts. 93 

3. Another characteristic is, the Mosaic law being written con- 
tinuously, without spaces between the sections. This is merely an 
evidence that the copyist did not observe the prescribed rules. 

4. The absence of critical emendations is also given as a sign of 
considerable antiquity. But every pointed codex is corrected ; and 

5. The absence of vowel-points can be no criterion of age, as has 
been assumed. They might be readily neglected. 

6. The blackness of the consonants and fading of the vowels 
have been taken to indicate the great age of those consonants, and 
the modern character of the pointing. But there must be a differ- 
ence between the letters and vowels, even though made by the same 
hand, because different inks and pens were used in writing them. 

7. When a MS. has been retouched or freshened, it is supposed 
to be ancient. But the necessity of this proceeding often arose from 
accident, not from necessity. 

8. The frequent occurrence of the name Jehovah instead of 
Adonai, and the abbreviation of Jehovah by m or >,\ or V, has been 
thought to show antiquity. But MSS. are very arbitrary in inter- 
changing the two appellations ; and the abbreviations are also ar- 
bitrary. 

9. The frequent or sparing use of letters with unusual forms, of 
larger and smaller suspended and inverted consonants, has also been 
employed as a test of age. But these things depended on a close or 
loose attachment to the Masorah. 

10. Nor can the yellow parchment of a MS. attest its antiquity. 
Many circumstances would soon render a white MS. yellow, espe- 
cially damp. 

11. It is also alleged that the poetical books are metrically written 
in very old copies. But here the copyists were bound by no rules, 
except in two instances already specified. 

12. Old MSS. are also said to follow the Talmudic order of the 
books. This position cannot be sustained. 

13. The circumstance that a codex has passed through the hands 
of several correctors and critics, does not prove its antiquity. A 
very young MS. might happen to be so treated. 

14. The thickness and grossness of the hide has also been sup- 
posed to show a high antiquity. Surely different qualities of hide 
would appear at all times. 

Such are the chief rules given by Jablonski, Wolf, Houbigant, 
Kennicott, and De Rossi, for determining the age of MSS.; and 
such the insecure nature of them. Schnurrer 1 , Tychsen 2 , and Eich- 
horn 3 , have sufficiently exposed their weakness. 

Where the birthplace of MSS. is not given in their subscriptions 
it is difficult to discover it by internal marks. No general criteria 
are available for this end any more than in finding out the age. The 
following have been adduced as the distinguishing characteristics of 
Spanish MSS. which are usually esteemed the best. 

1 De Codd. Hebr. Vet. Test. Matiuscriptor. tetate difficulter determinanda, in his 
Dissertationes Philologico-criticse, p. 1. et seqq. 

2 Tentamen, p. 264. et seqq 3 Einleit. vol. ii. § 372. 



94 Biblical Criticism. 

1. It is affirmed that the Spanish Jews made use of the Velshe 
character. This position does not always hold good. 

2. Manuscripts written in a very simple, plain character, without 
any ornaments, are said to be Spanish. But surely German calli- 
graphers might imitate the same character. 

3. There is said to be a certain arrangement of haphtaroth in 
Spanish MSS. But the Spanish Jews did not always strictly follow 
the arrangement referred to. 

4. The Spanish are said to follow the Masoretic arrangement of 
books. Yet many copies observe neither the Masoretic nor the 
Talmudic order. 

5. The Spanish Jews are said to havt revised their MSS. more 
critically than the Germans, and to have occupied their margins with 
various remarks. But this is true only in a limited sense. 

6. Certain readings are said to be peculiar to Spanish copies. 
But no MS. follows throughout the readings termed characteristic- 
ally the Spanish. 

7. The Spanish copies are said to have always Chateph Kametz 
instead of Kametz. But all MSS. mostly use Chateph Kametz for 
Kametz. 

8. The use of Dagesh forte in ? after V is said to characterise 
Spanish and Italian MSS. But it is surely possible that the Spanish 
punctuation may have been accidentally employed for a German 
codex, and vice versa. 

9. Spanish codices are said to have the hemistichs in Exodus xv. 
in a peculiar way. This is not always the case. 

10. Spanish codices are said to contain the eastern, and German 
ones the western readings. But it is evident from Kennicott's colla- 
tions, that the two kinds of readings are mixed in all MSS. 

11. Spanish copies are said to have the vowel points in all the 
oft-recurring words and clauses contained in Levit. vii. 18 — 38 ; 
whereas the German copies leave the repetitions unpointed. Surely 
this depends on the careful industry of the punctuator more than on 
country. 

German MSS., on the other hand, are discoverable by the fol- 
lowing marks : — 

1. They are written in the Tarn character. 

2. Their characters are somewhat artificial, being furnished with 
all kinds of figures and calligraphical ornaments. 

3. They follow the German order of Haphtaroth. 

4. They have the books arranged in the Talmudic order. 

5. They contain the Western readings. 

Much the same objections lie against the criteria of German as 
are adduced against those of Spanish codices. All are uncertain and 
insecure. 1 

What, then, is to be said about the country of codices ? Can it 

be found in no instance? Is it matter of conjecture and nothing 

more ? Surely a number of particulars may unite to assign a codex 

to a particular country, to Spain for example, rather than to Ger- 

1 Eichhorn, Einleit. vol. ii. § 371. 



Hebrew Manuscripts. 

many or Poland? There are probabilities which may lit 
takeably in a certain direction, and so indicate either Sp 
German MSS. But one criterion is not sufficient. Various,,. 
must be found together ; and in proportion to their number does . 
probability of the conclusion derived from them increase in strength. 
Something depends too on familiarity with MSS. Facility in de- 
tecting their age and country is acquired by habit. He that has 
examined and collected most, will be in a better position for judging 
of their date, value, and native place, than one comparatively unused 
to the sight of such documents. 

Eichhorn has pertinently remarked that Bruns's acquaintance with 
codices makes his testimony on this subject entitled to attention. 
Spanish MSS. are thus characterised by him. 

Spanish copies are written with paler, German with blacker, ink. 
The pages of the former are seldom divided into three columns. The 
Psalms are arranged after the manner of the 32nd chapter of 
Deuteronomy in the common editions. The Chaldee text does not 
alternate with the Hebrew in single verses, but is put by itself in 
a column, commonly in smaller characters than the Hebrew. The 
Hagiographa are arranged in Spanish MSS. in the Masoretic mode, 
as follows : Chronicles, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Canticles, 
Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra. Jeremiah is 
never put before Isaiah. The lines always end with an entire word, 
to accomplish which the letters are sometimes placed closer than 
usual together, sometimes wider asunder Between the last words 
in a line an empty space is occasionally left, or filled with particular 
marks. The last letters of concluding words sometimes stand beyond 
the limits of the line. The half of a book is not marked in the text 
itself, still less with unusual letters. The initial words of the par- 
shioth in biblical books are not different from ordinary ones. Figures, 
ornaments, flourishes, are not used. The beginning of parshiotk 
is marked in the margin £HS with small letters. A threefold 2 or 
n^iD is not found. Every book does not end with ptn. Books are 
separated by a space of four lines. The upper part of the letters 
coincides with the lines drawn on the parchment; but the lower 
part does not stand upon the lines. Metheg and mappik seldom 
appear; raphe or a cross-stroke over undageshed consonants often 
occurs. These marks, taken in conjunction with the form of the 
Spanish character, will generally enable one to distinguish a Spanish 
codex from a copy written elsewhere. In Bruns's edition of Kenni- 
cott's general dissertation, the editor has given five engraved speci- 
mens, showing the Italian, German, and Spanish characters — one 
of the Italian (from cd. 1.); one of the German (from cod. 96.), and 
three of Spanish (from codd. 290. 293. 682.). But Kennicott says 
that the characters in cod. 1. are Spanish. 1 

Having shown that the age and country of Hebrew MSS. are 

somewhat uncertain, or at least that the evidences of both must be 

received with caution, it follows that the goodness of MSS. cannot 

be definitely determined by general characteristics. Antiquity is 

1 Eichhorn, Einleit. toI. ii. p. 555. et seqq. 



Biblical Criticism. 

circumstance that occurs to the mind, since it is natural to 

that the nearer a codex is to the period of the original, the 

should its text be to the original. But this admits of many 

.^eptions. Ancient MSS. are often less valuable than others 
younger than they. 

The first place in value is assigned to Spanish MSS., because 
they were most carefully corrected; the next to the French and 
Italian ; the last to the German. The Rabbins unite in praise of the 
Spanish. But there are good and bad copyists in every country ; 
and calligraphy may have operated, at times, injuriously upon the 
accuracy of the text. Transcribers would not like to spoil the beauty 
of the letters by erasures. 

Again, it may be that MSS. made by learned transcribers are 
better than those of the ignorant. This position however is doubt- 
ful. Perhaps an unlettered copyist was less liable to alter pre- 
masoretic readings. 

Still further, it has been thought that a codex made for a Rabbin 
or a Jew of distinction has a claim to be considered good. But in 
many cases this may not have been so. Much would depend on the 
kind of copyist chosen. 

Again, it has been supposed that when a codex has the form of a 
synagogue roll, i. e. when it contains the Pentateuch, the book of 
Esther, and the Haphtaroth (which were always in three separate 
rolls in the synagogue), and is intended to repeat the lessons, it har- 
monises closely with the text of the synagogue copies, and is therefore 
more accurate. This criterion too is liable to be called in question. 

Lastly, a correctly lined codex has been thought favourable to a 
correct text. But there is no necessary connection between the 
two things. 

On the whole, each codex must be judged by itself. The charac- 
ter of the readings which distinguish it determines the value of its 
text. Criticism must decide upon its merits impartially, by the 
general quality of the readings. 

All known MSS. were written either by Jews or proselytes, as 
has been inferred from subscriptions and other marks. Tychsen 
thought that many were written by Christians ; but all his argu- 
ments were refuted by Eichhorn. 

In classifying existing MSS., it is impossible to find a good divi- 
sion. Some have distinguished them into Masoretic and unmaso- 
retic ; others into Masoretic and ante-Masoretic. Masoretic are 
those conformed to the Masorah ; unmasoretic, such as do not agree 
with it everywhere. But all contain the Masoretic recension more 
or less fully. As to ante-Masoretic, none such really exist. Thus 
there is but one family of Hebrew MSS., the Masoretic one. All 
ire comparatively recent. None reach up to so high dates as the 
Leading uncial codices of the Greek Testament. Other classifica- 
tions are -equally useless, such as pointed and unpointed, corrected 
and uncorrected, pure and mixed, eastern and western, cabbalistic 
ar midrashical. Nor is that of De Rossi l of any more value than 

1 Prolegomena in Varias Lectiones, Vet. Test. vol. i. §§ 14, 15, 16. 



Hebreiv Manuscripts. 

these ; viz. more ancient, or such as were written before the 
century ; ancient, those written in the thirteenth and fou, 
centuries ; more recent, those written at the close of the foun 
and in the fifteenth centuries. The most recent, or those writtt.. 
since the fifteenth century, which are commonly found in syna- 
gogues, are of little or no use unless it can be shown that they were 
transcribed from ancient apographs. 1 

Private 3ISS. in the Rabbinical character. — These codices are 
mostly made of eastern or linen paper having a Rabbinical mode of 
writing or one like it, without points and Masorah, sometimes fur- 
nished with an Arabic version, having many abbreviations, and 
generally very modern. Such are 9. 13. 15. 22. 34. 346. 227. 342., 
&c. of Kennicott. 

Upwards of eleven hundred MS 8. were collated by Kennicott 
and De Rossi, few of them throughout. It is greatly to be regretted 
that they were not distributed into such as are good and valuable, 
and those of inferior worth. Had the two collators done so, we 
should have had a good classification. And having separated them 
in this manner, it would have contributed much more to the criticism 
of the Old Testament, if they had collated the better class through- 
out, neglecting the other. Perhaps they would have discovered 
by this procedure various copies which bear such an affinity to one 
another as to indicate that they flowed from a common source. 

Since the collations of Kennicott and De Rossi, another has been 
made, but a much smaller one, by Pinner at Odessa. But although 
the number he examined was few, the antiquity of most, and the 
singularity of some, render his descriptions important and interest- 
ing. The oldest MS. collated by De Rossi (No. 634.) belongs, as 
he supposes, to the eighth century ; the oldest in Kennicott's collation, 
(No. 590.), to the eleventh. But in Pinner one is dated 580, 
(No. 1.), in the sixth century. Two are dated in the ninth century, 
and two in the tenth. 

The Jews in China have nothing but Masoretic copies. Since 
1850 almost all their MSS. have been bought, and are now in 
London; both synagogue-rolls and others. In 1851 fac-similes of 
parts of them were published at Shanghae, whence it appears that 
the text is the Masoretic. One of the rolls was collated by Mr. 
Coleman, and is described in Davidson's Biblical Criticism. 2 

In 1806, Buchanan brought from the East a synagogue-roll found 
among the Malabar Jew T s. This codex was minutely examined and 
described by Yeates. 3 It is made of goat-skins dyed red. It is 
evidently an European Masoretic roll, either made in Spain, or more 
probably copied from a Spanish MS. by a careless transcriber. Its 
value is small. 

1 See Eichhorn, Einleit. vol. ii. p. 467. et seqq., and Davidson's Bib. Crit. vol. i. 
chap, xxiii. 

2 Vol. i. chap. xxv. 

s Collation of an Indian copy of the Pentateuch, p. 2. et seqq. 



Biblical Criticism. 
CHAP. XXIII. 

A FEW OF THE OLDEST MSS. DESCRIBED. 

The following are a few of the most ancient MSS. collated by 
Kennicott, Bruns, De Rossi, and Pinner. 

1. Cd. 634., De Rossi, in quarto. — This contains a fragment of the 
books of Lev. xxi. 19. — Numb. i. 50., on parchment, without voAvel 
points Masorah and Keris, without spaces left between sections, 
though sometimes a point is inserted between words. De Rossi 
supposes that it was written in the eighth century. In De Rossi's 
own collection. 

2. Cd. 503., De Rossi, in quarto. — This is a MS. of the Pentateuch 
on parchment, composed of various ancient pieces, beginning with 
Gen. xlii. 14., and ending with Deut. xv. 12. At present it has a 
chasm from Lev. xxi. 19. — Numb. i. 50., because De Rossi sepa- 
rated the latter from it, thinking it to be older, and marked it as a 
peculiar fragment by itself, No. 634., i. e. the preceding one. The 
vowel-points are appended but not everywhere, and proceed from 
the hand of the consonant- writer. There is no trace of the Masorah 
or Keri; and in singular readings there is a remarkable agreement 
with the Samaritan text and the old versions. De Rossi puts the 
oldest leaves of which it is made up in the ninth or tenth century. 
Belonging to his collection. 

3. Cd. 590., Kennicott, in folio. — This codex contains the Prophets 
and Hagiographa, written on vellum. The text has the vowel-points, 
but apparently by a later hand. In the margin there is nothing of 
the Masorah, but various readings are marked here and there. Some 
books have the final Masorah. The separate books have no Hebrew 
title, and are arranged in the most ancient order — Jeremiah and 
Ezekiel preceding Isaiah, and Ruth the Psalms. The codex has an 
inscription in which it is said to be written in 1018 or 1019, as it may 
be read. According to Adler, it consists of 471 leaves and two co- 
lumns, each column containing twenty-seven lines. It is at Vienna. 

4. Cd. L, Kennicott, in folio. — This codex is on parchment, con- 
taining the whole of the Old Testament, but defective till Gen. 
xxvii. 31. The letters are much faded, but in many cases they have 
been written over a second time. Originally the text was without 
vowel-points. It has some fragments of the Masorah, and was evi- 
dently meant to have it from the lines in the upper and lower margin. 
Kennicott affirms that the text of it differs from Van der Hooght's 
in 14,000 cases, of which more than 2000 are in the Pentateuch 
alone. According to the same critic, 109 of these confirm the Sep- 
tuagint, 98 the Syriac, 82 the Arabic, 88 the Vulgate, 42 the Chaldee 
paraphrase, in the Pentateuch portion. It also agrees with the 
Samaritan against the Hebrew in 700 words. Hence the text de- 
viates widely from the Masoretic, and coincides with the ancient 
versions. 1 It must have been greatly altered, or else taken from an 
incorrect exemplar. Kennicott places it in the eleventh century, 
Bruns in the twelfth. It belongs to the Bodleian Library. 

1 Pissertatio Generalis, ed. Bruns. p. 335. et seqg. 



Hebrew Manuscripts. 99 

5. Cd. 536., Kennicott, in folio. — This codex is on parchment, con- 
taining the Pentateuch, the Haphtaroth, and the five Megilloth. It 
begins with Gen. ii. 13., is without Masorah, has some younger leaves 
at the commencement and end. In its margin are inserted some 
various readings of ancient MSS. De Rossi pronounces it very- 
valuable ; and Kennieott plaees it in the eleventh century. It is in 
the Malatesta Library at Bologna. 

6. Cd. 162., Kennicott, in quarto. — This codex is on parchment, 
containing the books of Joshua, Judges, and Samuel. It is de- 
fective however till Josh. vi. 20., and from 1 Sam. i. 1 — 10., and 
from 2 Sam. xxiv. 10. till the end. Many letters which were ob- 
literated by time have been renewed by a later hand ; and the diver- 
sities of the text would have been more numerous had not some 
words been changed by the renovator. It may be assigned to the 
commencement of the twelfth century, and belongs to the Laurentian 
Library at Florence. 

7. Cd. 262., De Rossi, in folio. — This codex is on parchment, con- 
taining the Pentateuch, the Megilloth, and Haphtaroth. The vowel- 
points are from the same hand with the consonants. There are no 
Masorah and Kris. The text frequently agrees with the Samaritan 
Pentateuch and the ancient versions. De Rossi assigns it to the 
eleventh century. It belongs to his own collection. 

8. Cd. 10., De Rossi, in quarto. — This codex is on parchment, 
containing the Pentateuch and the Megilloth, without Masorah and 
''Kris. It is defective at the beginning till Gen. xix. 35. It has also 
the Targum. The character is rude and defaced by time ; the initial 
letters larger. De Rossi places it in the end of the eleventh or 
beginning of the twelfth century. It belongs to his own collection. 

9. Cd. 349., De Rossi, in quarto. — This codex, on parchment, con- 
tains the Book of Job. It has no Masorah, and but a single 'Kri put 
by the punctuator. The pages are distributed in two columns, 
and the lines are unequal. De Rossi assigns it to the end of the 
eleventh or commencement of the twelfth century. It is in his 
own collection. 

10. Cd. 379., De Rossi, in folio. — This parchment codex contains 
the Hagiographa. It is defective at the beginning and end, since it 
begins with Psal. xlix. 15. and ends with JS'eh. xi. 4. It is also 
without Masorah and 'Kris. The poetical books are arranged in he- 
mistichs. De Rossi, who places a high value on the MS., assigns it 
to the end of the eleventh or beginning of the twelfth century. It 
is in his own collection. 

11. Cd. 611., De Rossi, in octavo. — This parchment codex contains 
the Pentateuch, without the Masorah, and with a few 'Kris. The 
letters are frequently faded. It is defective till Gen. i. 27. Frequent 
omissions occur, which are supplied in the margin. De Rossi assigns 
the same date to it as the last. It belongs to his own collection. 

12. Cd. 4., Kennicott, in folio. — This parchment codex contains all 
the Old Testament. It is defective till Gen. xxxiv. 21., and from 2 
Chron. ix. 5. Jeremiah and Ezekiel are before Isaiah, according to 
the oldest arrangement. So too in the Hagiographa, Ruth precedes 



100 Biblical Criticism. 

Psalms. It was at first written without the vowel-points, which are 
still wanting occasionally for several lines. It belongs to the twelfth 
century, and is in the Bodleian Library. 

13. Cd. 154., Kennicott, in folio. — This codex is on parchment 
and contains the Prophets, with the Targum written interlinearly. 
It is defective from Josh. x. 12 — 32., and 1 Sam. xii. 21. — xvii. 1. 
In very many instances its text departs from the Masoretic one. 
Kennicott and De Rossi value it very highly. According to the in- 
scription, it was written a.d. 1106. It once belonged to the famous 
Reuchlin, and is now in the public library of Carlsruhe. 

14. Cd. 193., Kennicott, in octavo. — This parchment codex con- 
tains the Pentateuch without vowel-points and Masorah. The first 
chapters of Genesis, the last chapters of Leviticus, and the part of 
Deuteronomy from v. 26. are from a later hand. The same hand 
has appended a subscription, according to which it was written a.d. 
1287, which of course is only the date of the supplied parts. The 
rest of the MS. belongs to the twelfth century. It has many era- 
sures and alterations which were made by the supplementer also ; but 
it contained many good readings. Bruns thinks that the scribe was 
a Christian. The MS. is in the Ambrosian Library at Milan. 

15. Cd. 193., Kennicott, in folio. — This parchment codex contains 
the Prophets and Hagiographa, but it is defective in various parts, till 
1 Sam. xx. 24. ; from Ezek. xi. 19. to Isa. xli. 17. ; from Esth. ix. 16 — 
Ezra ii. 69. ; from Ezra viii. 24 — Neh. i. 5. ; and from 2 Chron. 
xix. 6. The books are arranged in a peculiar order. Jeremiah fol- 
lows Samuel, then 1 Kings, Ezekiel, and Isaiah. After Esther come 
Ezra and Nehemiah. The Masorah is very rarely put. Kennicott, 
who values it very highly, places its origin at the beginning of the 
twelfth century. It is in the Ebnerian Library at Nurnberg. 

16. Cd. 210., Kennicott, in cpiarto. This codex on parchment, 
contains all the Old Testament. It is without Masorah, has only a 
few Kris, and is said to be rich in good readings. The Megilloth 
immediately precede Chronicles. Houbigant and Starck praise it 
highly. Kennicott assigns it to the beginning of the twelfth century. 
It belongs to the Royal Library at Paris. 

17. Cd. 224., Kennicott, in folio. — This codex contains the Prophets 
and Hagiographa, but is defective till Josh. vi. 16. ; from Ruth i. 1. 
— ii. 4.; from 2 Chron. xiv. 10 — xix. 8. ; and from 2 Chron. xxxiv. 22. 
till the end. The books are arranged in the oldest order, so that Ruth 
precedes the Psalms, and Jeremiah with Ezekiel go before Isaiah. 
The initial letters are larger; and the three poetical books are 
divided into hemistichs. Its readings often agree with the ancient 
versions. It is assigned to the twelfth century ; and is now in the 
Royal Library at Konigsberg. 1 

The following are the principal MSS. which were examined at 
Odessa by Pinner. 

18. Pinner, No. 1. — This is a Pentateuch roll on leather. Of 
course it has no vowels or Masorah. The form of the letters differs 

1 See Kennicott's Dissertatio Generalis, ed. Bruns. ; De Eossi's Prolegomena ; and 
Davidson's Bib. Crit. vol. i. 



Hebrew Manuscripts. 101 

considerably from the present square one. It contains but few vari- 
ous readings. According to the subscription, it was corrected in the 
year 580, consequently the roll must be upwards of 1270 years old. 
If the subscription be genuine, which Pinner does not doubt, (though 
the words of the MS. are separated from one another, and such 
separation was not commonly made till a.d. 800 — 1000), it is the 
most ancient MS. known. It was brought from Derbend in 
Daghestan. 

19. Pinner, No. 5. — This is an incomplete Pentateuch roll, begin- 
ning with Numb. xiii. 19. The form of the letters is considerably 
different from the present. The text has been carefully copied. The 
subscription states that it was written a.d. 843. 

20. Pi?iner,~No. 11. — This is part of a synagogue-roll, beginning 
with Deut. xxxi. 1. The inscription assigns it to the year 881. 

21. Pinner, No. 3., folio. — This codex contains Isaiah, Jeremiah 
Ezekiel, and the twelve minor prophets, and is on parchment. Every 
page has two columns, between which, as well as below and in the 
outer margin, stands the Masorah. The vowels and accents are en- 
tirely different from those now used. They are all too above the 
letters. The first page has a twofold pointing, above and below; but 
this does not occur again, except occasionally. From Zech. xiv. 6 — 
Mai. i. 13. there is no punctuation. The first three verses of 
Malachi only have been pointed much later, in the manner at pre- 
sent used. The text is very correctly written, and the various 
readings important. The form of the consonants is very different 
from our present ones. 

According to the subscription the MS. belongs to 916 a.d. This 
unique codex has excited considerable attention, especially in rela- 
tion to its vowels and accents. Stern, Ewald, Luzzatto, and Eoediger 
have written about them. A good fac-simile of it is given by Pinner. 

22. Pinner, No. 13., in folio. — This parchment codex is imperfect, 
containing 2 Sam. from vi. 10., and the two books of Kings. Each 
page has three columns, between which, as well as at the sides of the 
text, stands the Masorah. The text has many and important various 
readings. The vowels and accents are different in many respects 
from those now current. The MS. states that it was purchased 
A.D. 938. It is a very valuable and important codex. 

23. Pinner, small folio. — This parchment codex contains the Pen- 
tateuch, Prophets, and Hagiographa. Each page has three columns, 
except in Psalms, Job, and Proverbs, where there are but two. 
The text has vowels and accents. The letters and accents are similar 
to those in No. 3. of Pinner. The little Masorah stands between the 
columns, as well as on the outer and inner margin. Only from two 
to four lines of the great Masorah are found above and below. It is 
inaccurately copied. According to the subscription, it was written 
in Egypt a.d. 1010. 1 

Seventeen MSS. of the Samaritan Pentateuch are known to exist 

1 See Prospectus der der Odessaer Gesellschaft fuer Geschichte und Altherthutner 
Gehoerenden aeltesten Hebraisehen und Rabbinischen Manuscripte ; and Davidson's 
Bib. Crit. p. 357. et seqq. 



102 Biblical Criticism. 

in various libraries throughout Europe. Seven are in England, five 
in Paris, two in Rome, one at Milan, one at Leyden, and one at 
Gotha. Of these the chief are : — 

24. Cd. 334., in quarto. — This codex, on parchment, is defective 
till Gen. xviii. 2. ; from Lev. xiv. 39. till xvii. 4. ; and from Deut. 
vii. 5. till the end. It is very ancient and valuable. Kennicott 
places it in the eighth century. It belongs most probably to the 
eleventh, and is in the Royal Library at Paris. 

25. Cd. 363. — A complete codex on parchment, belonging to the 
close of the eleventh century. The Samaritan Pentateuch was first 
printed from it by Morin. It is now in the library of the Oratoire 
at Paris. 

26. Cd. 197., 12mo. — This codex is on parchment, and the cha- 
racters are red. It is defective in many places and illegible. It was 
collated for Bruns by Branca, and is of great value. Probably it 
may be assigned to the twelfth century. It belongs to the Ambro- 
sian Library at Milan. 

27. Cd. 127., in quarto. — A complete codex on parchment. The 
date is 1362. It is now in the British Museum. 

28. Cd. 62., in quarto. — This codex, on parchment and paper, has 
an Arabic version in parallel columns, but in the Samaritan cha- 
racter. It is very defective. According to the subscription, part of 
it was written or supplied A. D. 1524. Kennicott assigns it to the 
middle of the thirteenth century. It is in the Bodleian Library. 

29. Cd. 66., in 24mo. — This codex, on parchment, is written in 
small letters. The text is faded in many places, and in some de- 
fective. It belongs to the middle of the twelfth century, and is in 
the Bodleian Library at Oxford. 

Critics usually believe that ancient editions taken immediately 
from MSS. are of equal use and authority to MSS. themselves, and 
may be regarded as such in criticism. They supply several good 
readings, and should not be neglected. Hence both Kennicott and 
De Rossi have employed this source. Those editions that preceded 
Bomberg's second Rabbinical Bible, published in 1525, specially 
apply here ; because their text has been less adapted to the Masorah. 

The following general observations on MSS. are taken from 
Davidson's Biblical Criticism: — 

" 1. The most obvious rule, if it can be called so, is that the 
reading found in the greater number of MSS. should be preferred. 
This, however, can only be cceteris paribus. 

"2. Besides number, the character of the MS. or MSS. containing 
a reading should be carefully considered. Thus the age ought not 
to be overlooked. Antiquity possesses some weight. The nearer 
MSS. are to the age of the writers themselves, the more value 
belongs to them. But the most ancient are comparatively recent. 
Yet, as some readings which have improperly perhaps been rejected by 
the Masoretes may occur in these ancient copies, they deserve attention. 

" 3. A recent MS., accurately written, may be transcribed from a 
very ancient and a very accurate one long ago lost. In such case, 
antiquity is rather apparent than real, and may readily mislead. 



Hebrew Manuscripts. ]03 

"4. The habits of the scribe should also be noted. "Was he exact 
and scrupulous in his copying, or was he negligent in his work? 
Did he write for a synagogue or for a private person ? What sort of 
exemplar did the scribe follow ? Can tins be inferred from any 
known circumstances ? 

" 5. Again, To what country does a codex belong ? The Spanish 
are esteemed by the Jews the most correct and the best, especially 
those made for synagogue use. Doubtless there are exceptions to 
the universality of this rule. 

"6. It is considered a mark of innate excellence in a MS. that it is 
not only accurately written, but contains besides many good readings 
differing from the received text, and clearly confirmed by the autho- 
rity of ancient versions. This canon should not be applied absolutely, 
or pushed too far. It certainly needs limitation, as applied by Cap- 
pell, Kennicott, and De Rossi. It should only be followed to a 
certain extent, and with great circumspection, lest ancient versions 
have an undue weight assigned to them." 1 

Examples of improper emendation by a MS. or MSS. are the 
following: — In Lev. iv. 29. instead of n^yn Dtpon, ~No. 4. of Kenni- 
cott reads !T?yn ont^ X'K DlpCQ, i. e. instead of he shall slay the sin- 
offering in the place of the bur nt- offering , this codex reads he shall slay 
the sin-offering in the place where he slays the burnt-offering. Hence 
Kennicott would bring these two words into the text, especially as 
they are confirmed by the Greek and Syriac versions, a«d by the 
Samaritan Pentateuch. 2 But in the latter authorities they are 
simply exegetical insertions; and the MS. must have got them ori- 
ginally from the versions. No claim of originality can be set up on 
their behalf. It is possible, indeed, that the true reading may be 
preserved in one MS. only; but then there must be a strong necessity 
for rectifying the text by a single witness. 

In Isa. lviii. 10. we read, if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry. 
Instead of 7~" a3 thy soul, eight MSS. have *pn? thy bread, which is 
also in the Syriac version. Hence Lowth and others rectify the 
text by admitting the latter word into it in place of the former. 
Here however, there is no reason for supposing the Masoretic 
reading corrupt. It gives a better sense than the proposed one, thy 
soul or thy desire, thy appetite. The authority is quite insufficient to 
justify an alteration. 

At Josh. xxi. 35. two additional verses, numbered as 36 and 37, 
are found in many MSS. On their authority, as well as on other 
considerations, they should be admitted into the text, though they 
are not recognised by the Masorah. 

In 1 Sam. x. 19. many MSS. read vh not, instead of V to him. 
This reading is also confirmed by ancient versions. Hence the former 
should be reckoned the right word ; or at least, not is the right sense, 
for it may be that r? was once used orthographically in the sense of 
not, as well as for the pronoun him. 

1 Bib. Crit. vol. i. pp. 371, 372. 2 First Dissertation, pp. 408, 409. 



104 Biblical Criticism. 

CHAP. XXIV. 

PARALLEL PASSAGES. 

Parallel passages are another source of various readings, and so 
assist in restoring the original text. But their aid has been over- 
estimated. They have been employed in many instances to amend 
the text where it needed no emendation. Both Cappell and Kenni- 
cott abused this source of various readings by applying it extensively 
and injudiciously. Nor have later writers been free from the same 
fault. The most copious collection of these parallels is given by 
Eichhorn, who divides them into 1. Historical sections repeated, in- 
cluding {a) Genealogies ; (b) Narratives. 2. Laws, oracles, and 
poems, that appear in a twofold form. 3. Ideas, sentences, proverbs, 
&c, repeated. A more correct list than Eichhorn's is given by 
Davidson. * It is not necessary however for our present purpose 
to enumerate the passages, because we believe that textual criticism 
can derive but small benefit from this quarter. The instances are 
comparatively rare in which it can be properly used for restoring 
authentic readings. It is of most use in the books of Kings and 
Chronicles, which often contain parallel accounts and histories. But 
the difficulty there is very great, because intricate questions con- 
nected with the higher criticism are involved. Some may correct in 
those books what the writers or compilers themselves penned. And 
so it has happened. Critics thought that such and such passages could 
not emanate from the original writers, and therefore set about recti- 
fying one by help of another. It is not easy to distinguish every- 
where between what the Chronicle writer wrote himself, and what a 
later hand may have altered. Hence the extreme delicacy of the 
task in regard to the parallels in Chronicles and other historical 
books. Parallel passages have been used most judiciously in textual 
criticism by Thenius in the books of Kings. Less so by the same 
writer in his commentary on Samuel. Hitzig on the Psalms has not 
proceeded with caution in the application of them. Very judicious 
is De Wette on the Psalms. On the other hand, Hengstenberg on 
the Psalms goes to an extreme in refraining from the use of this 
source, as if the Masoretic text were perfect. He is rigid in ad- 
herence to what he finds written; and is wrong accordingly in 
several instances. Perhaps he errs in abiding by the safer extreme. 
We apprehend, however, that aid may be derived from parallel pas- 
sages ; and that they should not be overlooked. When and how far 
they should be used, cannot be enunciated in general rules. Each 
case or passage must be judged of by itself, in the light of all 
phenomena. 

A few examples both of the improper and proper use of this source 
of criticism will now be given. 

In Isa. lxi. 4. we read, they shall build the old ivastes. In 
lviii. 12. the same sentence occurs, but with the addition after it of 

1 Bib. Crit. vol. i. p. 294. et seqq. 



Quotations. . 105 

they shall build, "pB i. e. from thee ; they that spring from thee shall 
build, 8fc. Four MSS. too have this reading. Hence by authority 
of the parallel, confirmed by four MSS., and on the supposition that 
the sentence in lxi. 4. is incomplete because we know not who are 
the builders, Lowth receives the word *p» into the text. But the 
sense is entire without any addition. The whole context shows that 
the restored exiles shall build the fallen cities. The authority for 
transferring *pD from the one passage to the other is wholly in- 
sufficient, and the necessity imaginary. 

In Judges, vii. 18., we read, Say, of the Lord and of Gideon. The 
parallel place in verse 20. has, the sword of the Lord and of Gideon ; 
and therefore 2~in, sword, is supposed to be wanting in verse 18. 
Accordingly it is found in ten MSS., as also in the Targum, the 
Syriac, and Arabic versions. But the text is not corrupted. The 
same writer varies his forms of expression relating to the same thing. 
Examples occur in viii. 16. compared with verse 7.; and in xvi. 
13, 14. It is far more likely that the word sword was transferred 
from verse 20. than that it was omitted from the 18th. We must 
therefore regard the versions and few MSS. as incorrect, contrary 
to the opinion of Dathe and others. 

On the other hand, numbers can often be rectified in this manner, 
especially by supposing that the Hebrew letters were used as nume- 
rals. Thus in 2 Chron. xxii. 2., forty and tico years old was Ahaziah, 
§'c, must be read twenty and two years old, 8fc, as in 2 Kings, viii. 26., 
else Ahaziah was born before his father. 

In 2 Kings, xxv. 3., the text is evidently defective, but the chasm 
may be supplied from Jer. lii. 6. by the word fourth, 'JPXin. This is 
confirmed by some versions. 

It has sometimes been asserted, that even where there is a verbal 
difference in copies of the same prayer or speech in the printed text, 
it ought to be corrected, as in Psal. xviii. compared with 2 Sam. xxii. 
But there is no ground for supposing that the same writer repeated 
himself in precisely the same words. The same transaction may be 
differently narrated in two passages without either being pronounced 
corrupt. Passages containing a command, and either a repetition of it 
or a record of its being obeyed, as in Exod. xx. 2 — 17. and Deut. v. 
6 — 22., must not be forced into verbal harmony. The same holds 
good of proverbial sayings, and even of records of the same gene- 
alogies, since the genealogy may be differently traced, some links 
being left out and others added. 



CHAP. XXV. 

QUOTATIONS. 



Anothee source whence various readings are derived and the resto- 
ration of the genuine text aided is, quotations from the Old Testa- 
ment. These are various. 1. Quotations in the New Testament. 



106 Biblical Criticism. 

2. In Josephus. 3. In the Talmud and Rabbins. 4. In the 
Masorah. 

1. Quotations in the New Testament. This source affords few 
various readings, not only because the writers generally quoted from 
the Greek, but because even in cases where they consulted the 
Hebrew, they gave the sense rather than the exact words. It is 
possible, however, notwithstanding the loose manner in which the 
New Testament writers employed passages in the Old, their memo- 
riter method of citation, and their indifference about mere words, 
that they may suggest here and there readings deserving of attention. 
In a few cases the Hebrew has been considered corrupt on their 
authority. But others have denied its corruptness even in those 
passages, holding that it cannot be established. The critical use of 
this source is small, though Cappellus has freely employed it. Cita- 
tions in the New Testament may be used to correct the text of the 
Septuagint in some cases where it has suffered. But when we con- 
sider that the apostles usually quoted from memory — that they added, 
omitted, transposed, and changed words according as they wished to 
adapt a place to their design — little reliance can be placed on their cita- 
tions as corrections of the Hebrew text, even supposing that they did 
abandon the Greek at times and follow the Hebrew. But we shall 
refer to them more in detail hereafter. 

2. Quotations in Josephus. Although Josephus has narrated a 
great part of the sacred history, yet there are no proper citations in 
his works. He used the Greek version, not the Hebrew original. 
In some places indeed he leaves the former and approaches the latter; 
but even then it is doubtful whether he followed the Hebrew. It is 
probable that he understood Hebrew. He can hardly be said to 
have cited the Old Testament text in his reproduction of the prin- 
cipal matters contained in it. But though this be the case, his 
writings may occasionally furnish some assistance in criticism, and 
should not be entirely overlooked. Names, numbers, and facts as he 
gives them, may suggest various readings. Yet the benefit to cri- 
ticism afforded by Josephus is very small. 

3. Quotations in the Talmud and Rabbins. The citations in the 
Talmud are in general literal and exact. Care must be taken how- 
ever to note such places as are merely alluded to, or in which there is 
some play on the original words without a formal citation. Some- 
times too only as many words are adduced as were necessary for a 
particular purpose ; sometimes the first terms of a place are given, 
leaving the reader to supply the rest ; sometimes again there is an 
addition to the biblical expressions. Mistakes are most apt to be 
made on the part of the critic in the case of allegorical puns and plays 
in which the Talmudists indulged. Thus the formula K?K p fcOpn bit 
p, do not read so, but so. belongs to the allegorical fancies of the 
writers. 

Important readings might have been expected from the Talmud 
because the MSS. it quotes were ante-masoretic. And Cappellus 
thought that the variations in it from the Masoretic text were of 
considerable value. But collations of its printed text have not 



Quotations. 107 

justified the expectations entertained, neither have they confirmed 
Capellus's statements. Its text is very poor in readings generally ; 
extremely poor in important ones. Gill, who collated the Mischna 
and Gemara for Kennicott, did not meet with more than a thousand 
variations in all, most of which are trifling. And he evidently 
increased the number injudiciously, by quoting as various readings 
expressions which were inserted merely as explanatory. Frommann, 
who carefully collated the Mischna, using three different editions of 
the text, found but twelve various readings. The cause of this 
paucity must lie partly at least in the editors of the printed editions 
of the Talmud, who, instead of accurately following their MSS., 
altered the text conformably to the printed Masoretic one. Hence 
some printed editions are more conformable to the Masorah than 
others, the earliest less, the latest most so, till at last the chief pe- 
culiarities for which criticism would have sought with eagerness, 
disappeared. In consequence of this procedure, MSS. of the Talmud 
should be carefully collated, and extracts made from them; for Gill's 
collations are all but useless, especially as no account is given by 
Kennicott of the manner in which he derived his extracts. 

As to quotations in the Rabbinical writings, the critic should con- 
fine himself to the oldest writers, Aben Esra, Rashi, David Kimchi, 
and Maimonides, because they are nearest to the Talmud. Where 
these writers quote the Old Testament, their citations do not always 
agree with our usual printed text. Sometimes they expressly adduce 
variations in the Hebrew text. It must be admitted however that 
their works do not afford many readings of importance. This is 
chiefly owing to the period they lived in ; for then the text had been 
fixed by the Masorah, and therefore their citations of it coincide with 
the later MSS. 

Here again, as in the case of the Talmud, printed editions of the 
writings of the Rabbins have not accurately followed MSS. of them. 
The text quoted or referred to in them has been conformed to the 
Masoretic one. Hence MSS. should be consulted rather than the 
printed editions of their works. As a proof of this, Kimchi's Liber 
Radicam may be mentioned, in which the Hebrew text is quoted 
with many deviations from that printed and edited by Latiph in 1490. 
The laborious editor has collected and put together all the departures 
from the Hebrew text in the work of Kimchi, in an appendix, in- 
forming the reader that they were not errata. But succeeding 
editors quietly altered the varying readings according to the printed 
text of the Hebrew, omitting altogether Latiph's appendix. 1 

Some examples of various readings from the Rabbins are given by 
Cappell. Others are given by Tychsen. But the few that have 
been as yet collected are of little value. 

4. Quotations in the Masorah. The materials contained in the 
Masorah were accumulated by degrees during various centuries ; and 
though they are not all of a critical nature, yet critical observations 
on the text are included in them. The chief" part of the Masorah of 
critical value is the tCri and dthib. Without doubt the origin of the 
1 Eichhorn, Einleit. vol. ii. § 341. 



108 Biblical Criticism. 

remarks so denoted reaches up to a remote time, even beyond the 
Talmud. In judging of the various readings characterised in the 
Masorah by these terms, we must not suppose with the Jews, that the 
Kri or marginal reading is to be preferred to the c'thib or textual 
one in every case. Buxtorf and many of the older critics held this 
extreme view. On the contrary, the c'thib should not be always 
adopted as the true reading, as Danzius and Schultens contended. 
The opinion that both should be adopted, though held by various 
scholars, is sufficiently absurd. Speaking generally, the c'thib is 
more correct than the Kri, the readings in it being generally older 
and more anomalous than the Kri. The right rule is to be guided 
in the adoption of one or other, in each particular case, by the con- 
text, the analogy of the language, parallel passages, and ancient 
versions. No universal canon as to one or other can be given. 

In like manner the Ittur Sopherim, Tikkan Sopherim, and the puncta 
extraor dinar ia, are of a critical nature, referring to revisions or traces 
of revision, i. e. to various readings, a circumstance denied in vain by 
Keil. 

The use of the Masorah may be illustrated by two examples. In 
Isa. ix. 2. we read fcO not ; thou hast not increased the joy. But the 
Kri has r? for him or it, referring to *fa. This latter is confirmed by 
above twenty MSS., the LXX., Syriac, and Chaldee, and is alone 
accordant with the sense. Again, in Psalm c. 3. we read IJITJK K?l, 
and not we ourselves. The Kri has i?l instead of &6l, which is con- 
firmed by many MSS., by the Chaldee and Jerome. It yields too a 
much better sense. Hence it should be adopted as the true reading. 
It is much to be regretted, that the earlier and later revisions of the 
Jews in the Masorah are so mixed up together as to be incapable of 
separation. The printed Masorah too, and the unprinted MSS., differ, 
as has been exemplified by Nagel 1 and Schiede. 2 This indeed is 
the result of old Masoretic and new Masoretic criticisms. On the 
whole, the Masorah has not been employed in criticism so much as it 
ought to have been. Kennicott depreciated it. Yet the age of the 
readings it recommends goes up much nearer to the originals than 
the oldest of Kennicott's MSS. And what serves to enhance their 
value is the fact, that they agree for the most part with the Hebrew 
text of Origen and Jerome, in opposition to the readings of our 
modern codices. Aquila too, who lived earlier than either, usually 
harmonises with the critical notes of the Masorah. It should therefore 
not be despised, as it has been by those who look merely at the 
puerile and trifling side of it. 



CHAP. XXVI. 

CRITICAL CONJECTURE. 



It is now admitted by almost all capable of forming a proper judg- 
ment in the department of Old Testament criticism, that critical 

i Dissertatio de Codd. Biblioth. Norimberg, p. 11. 
2 Observationum Sacrarum Biga, p. 190. 



Critical Conjecture. 109 

conjecture must be occasionally resorted to. The step is unavoidable. 
In consequence of the paucity and youth of all Hebrew MSS., the 
uncritical state in which the oldest and best versions are found, and 
of the comparative poverty of external evidence as a whole, added to 
the great extent of the Old Testament books and the remote times 
from which they have been handed down, the necessity of applying 
critical conjecture in the case of the Old Testament becomes apparent. 
Yet it should be used sparingly. It need not indeed be otherwise 
employed. The only rule respecting its application is, when a 
pressing necessity arises let it be adopted. But what is meant by a 
pressing or urgent necessity ? In cases where the existing text yields 
no meaning, or a meaning contradictory and absurd, external testi- 
mony supplying no remedy, conjecture is applicable. 

There is one very difficult question respecting its employment, 
which cannot be solved in a manner satisfactory to all. It is well 
known that various contradictions occur in the books of the Old 
Testament. This is especially the case in some historical books, as 
in Kings and Chronicles compared with one another. Ileal discre- 
pancies occur in numbers. They are also found in the narration of 
historical events. In the departments of chronology, geography, and 
history, these phenomena are most observable. Whatever ingenuity 
has been employed in trying to remove them entirely from the com- 
mon text, they refuse to be fairly eliminated from it. Are we then 
to apply critical conjecture to these cases, and bring them into har- 
mony by its aid? Or, are we to suppose that even in them the 
Masorah has preserved the original reading ? The answer to these 
questions involves ulterior considerations, affecting the canonical 
authority and inspiration of the Scriptures. Those who hold that 
such inspiration belonged to all the books, historical as well as more 
directly theological or devotional, as implied infallibility, will naturally 
maintain that all real discrepancies in them must be removed ; if not 
with the aid of external testimony, by that of conjecture. They 
consider it derogatory to the sacred authors to allow their writings 
to be disfigured by absolute contradictions. The authors were in- 
spired, and were therefore, they say, infallible in whatever they 
wrote under that divine influence. All the writers were inspired, 
no matter what the subject they touched upon, be it history, chrono- 
logy, or any collateral topic ; and therefore they could neither con- 
tradict themselves nor one another. Those again who hold that 
inspiration need not be extended to topics not religious or moral — 
who limit it to the moral and religious alone — will naturally be less 
solicitous about the application of conjecture for the removal of his- 
torical or chronological contradictions. They think it quite possible 
that the writers may have erred in these matters, without ever erring 
in higher topics ; that their inspiration extended to the one depart- 
ment merely, not to the other. To discuss the question at issue 
between the two parties does not belong to our province. We shall 
leave the matter undecided. All that we are inclined to assert at 
present is, that in the ordinary Masoretic text there are some contra- 
dictions which in our opinion could not have proceeded from the 



110 Biblical Criticism. 

original writers. They are so glaring and obvious as to induce the 
belief that they owe their existence to later causes. And they can 
be so easily accounted for, from the confounding of similar letters 
used as numerals, that we hold them fit subjects for conjecture. It 
is in our view a disgraceful thing that they have been allowed to 
disfigure the text so long ; for surely the Masorah w'as not infallible, 
and did not hand down to us a text perfectly correct. There is thus 
scope for critical conjecture, because in the cases we refer to no 
external testimony comes in to relieve the difficulty. But whether 
all contradictions should be removed in the same manner, is a point 
we do not undertake to settle. At present we are disinclined to 
apply the remedy to all. Historical annalists and compilers, like the 
writers of Kings and Chronicles, may possibly have made mistakes 
in times, dates, and circumstances. Perhaps they were not infallibly 
guided in such subordinate matters. If they were not, as is most 
probable, they were guilty of occasional mistakes ; and one contra- 
dicted himself or another here and there. Thus we apply critical 
conjecture in the case of some contradictory passages, not all. We 
apply it in the case of some places that yield no sense, not all. What 
these cases are must be left to one's own judgment. They must be 
determined each one by itself, according to its nature, appearance, 
and concomitant circumstances. 

It is matter of regret, that conjecture has been abused by so 
many. The temperament of some critics leads them to indulge in it. 
They are apt to suppose that the text is corrupt where it is not so ; 
and finding no various reading in it, they immediately resort to their 
favourite expedient. This has induced others who entertain greater 
reverence for the written word to eschew the use of so hazardous an 
expedient even in places where it should undoubtedly be employed. 
Their feelings react strongly against the unwarrantable licence in 
which so many have indulged, and they run to an opposite extreme 
which causes them to do violence to the natural interpretation in 
certain instances. We need not allude to the improper use of con- 
jecture by Cappell, Kennicott, Lowth, Houbigant, Geddes, Hitzig, 
and others; nor to the absolute integrity maintained by Buxtorf, 
Glassius, Carpzov, and so many of the older Protestant critics. The 
views adopted and followed by both parties are well known. 

It will serve, perhaps, to lessen the prejudices of some when they 
are informed that the Jews themselves hazarded such conjectures. 
The Masoretes occasionally put in the margin }*T5P sbirin, which 
expressed their opinion of what ought to be read in certain cases. 

We shall first give a few examples of the abuse of critical con- 
jecture, and afterwards of its legitimate application. 

In Ps. lxxxiv. 6. the word JT)7D», rendered ways, does not please 
Hitzig ; and therefore he is disposed to change it into JTipyo, meaning 
journeys to the festivals at Jerusalem. But the former yields a good 
and suitable sense. 

In Ps. xxxii. 7. the word "0"i is rejected by Teller and many other.- 
as unsuitable. But it yields a good sense, and is not contrary t' 
other modes of expression. 



Critical Conjecture. HI 

In Isa. xxx. 32. occurs the expression niDlb r\hb, which Le Clerc, 
Lowth, Bauer, and others, would change into mDID nDE, staff of cor- 
rection. But the sense of the common expression is obvious enough, 
staff of grounding, chastisement of determination, determined or ap- 
pointed ■punishment. 

In Isa. xl. 7- the second number of the verse tayn TXn pN is sup- 
posed to be a marginal gloss by Koppe, Eichhorn, Gesenius, and 
Hitzig. But for this there is no good reason. The verse reads 
better with than without the clause. 

On the other hand, the following conjectures appear to be required 
by the sense and connection. In Ex. xvii. 16. D3 should be DJ. The 
word occurs nowhere else, and is usually considered equivalent to 
ND3, throne. But that does not yield a suitable sense; whereas DJ is 
in harmony with the context, especially verse 15., so that Moses in 
it refers to the name just given to the altar, as is usual. Comp. 
Gen. xvi. 13. 

In 2 Kings, xv. 27. Pekah is said to have reigned twenty years. 
But this is inconsistent with xv. 33., and also with xvii. 1. Hence 
Ave should probably read thirty years, which agrees perfectly with 
all the other notices relating to his reign. ^ as a numeral was 
abridged into 3, and hence the mistake arose. In 2 Kings, i. 13. 
stands DW, which embarrasses the sense, since it cannotbe translated 
with De AVette, for the third time, nor can it be rendered the third 
fifty. It ought to be W, a third, which reading is supported by 
"ins in verse 11., and 'tPwn in the immediate context. 

In every case of critical conjecture, the best guide is the usus 
loquendi of the writer and the nature of the place supposed to be 
corrupt. If the origin of the mistake can be readily accounted for, 
the proposed remedy will be the more probable. If the conjectural 
reading would easily have given occasion to the present one, it is all 
the more likely to have been at first in the text. It is understood, 
of course, that the division of words may be changed, or the vowel 
points altered. Critical conjecture scarcely includes such trifling 
things, because both division of words and the vowels were of later 
origin than the writers themselves. It concerns the changing of a 
word or words for others, the alteration of letters, addition, omission, 
or transposition, with reference to something at present existing in 
the text. We would earnestly inculcate on every critic, especially 
every tyro, the need of caution in meddling with the text. It is 
not often corrupt ; far less than many good scholars have supposed. 
If it be considered necessary to rectify the text where external means 
fail, let a thorough acquaintance with the Hebrew language be an 
indispensable qualification in the man who undertakes the task. 
Even Houbigant saw and asserted this, though he himself not being 
furnished with the knowledge of Hebrew recommended, fell into 
countless errors. 



112 Biblical Criticism. 

CHAP. XXVII. 

APPLICATION OF THE SOURCES OF CRITICISM. 

When the sources of criticism are divided in their testimony, as 
they usually are, the first thing is to adjust the external witnesses 
with a view to ascertain the amount of their united evidence. To 
what form of the text do they incline as a whole ; and how strongly ? 
We have next to look to the internal evidence. Which reading is 
most favoured by it? In judging of external evidence, the critic 
looks at the number of witnesses supporting a reading, their critical 
character, their age, their independence of one another. 

The following rules are taken from Davidson's Biblical Criticism : — 

" 1. A reading found in all critical documents is commonly the 
right or original one. 

" 2. When the Masoretic text deviates from the other critical docu- 
ments, and when these documents agree in their testimony quite 
independently of one another, the reading of the latter is preferable. 

" 3. If the documents disagree in testimony, the usual reading of 
the Masoretic text should be preferred, even though a majority of 
the Hebrew MSS. collated cannot be quoted in its favour. 

" 4. A reading found in the Masoretic text alone, or in the sources 
of evidence alone, independently of the Masoretic text, is suspicious. 

" 5. If the MSS. of the original text disagree with one another, 
number does not give the greater weight; but other things, such as 
age, country, &c, aided by internal grounds. 

" 6. The more difficult reading is generally preferable to the easier 
one. 

" 7. A reading more consonant with the context, with the design 
and style of the writer, and with the parallelism in prophetic and 
poetical books, is preferable. 

" 8. Every reading apparently false, vicious, absurd, containing a 
contradiction, is not on that account actually incorrect. 

" 9. It is possible that a reading which has no more than one or two 
witnesses in its favour, if it be intrinsically good, may be worthy of 
adoption. 

" 10. It is possible that, in some places, the true reading may be 
preserved in none of the sources. If there be strong reasons for 
thinking so, critical conjecture should be resorted to." 1 

1 Bib. Crit. vol. i. pp. 386, 387. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



113 



CHAP. XXVIII. 

TABLES OF THE QUOTATIONS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THE NEW. 

The texts from which these selections have been made are that of 
Van der Hooght for the Hebrew ; that of Tischendorf for the Sep- 
tuagint, taken from the Vatican Codex ; and that of Lachmann's 
larger edition for the New Testament. The English of the Septua- 
gint is from Brenton's translation. The English of the Hebrew and 
of the Greek Testament is from the authorised version. In a few 
instances the English of Brenton and that of the New Testament 
have been altered. 



(1.) Is. vii. 14. 

'iSov t) napdevos ev yacrrpl 
Arj\perai, km re^erai vlbv, Kal 
KaAecrets rb oco/ia avrov 'E/x- 
(xavovrjA 



Behold, a virgin shall con- 
ceive in the womb, and shall 
bring forth a sou, and thou 
shalt call his name Emma- 
nuel. 



Matt. i. 23. 

[ J Iea TrATjpocdfj rb pr]6ev virb 
Kvpiov 8ia rov ■KpoiprjTov Ae- 
yovros • ] 'ISov 7] irapQevos 
ev yacrrpl el-et Kal re^erai vlbv, 
leal KaAecrovaiv rb uvo/xa avrov 
'EujJ.ai>ovr)A. 

[That it might be fulfilled 
which was spoken of the Lord 
by the prophet, saving,] Be- 
hold, a virgin shall be witli 
child, and shall bring forth a 
son, and they shall call his 
name Emmanuel. 



rr£ 



Is. vii. 14. 



io^ ninjj} |3 



Behold, a virgin shall con- 
ceive, and bear a son, and 
shall call his name Immanuel. 



(2.) Micah, v. 2. 

Kal crv BriOAeep. oTkos 'Ecp- 
pa6a, oAiyoarbs el rov elvai ev 
XtAiacriv 'lovda' £k ctov fxoi 
e^eAewerai rov elvai els &p- 
Xovra rov '\crpar]A. 



And thou,Bethleem, house 
of Ephratha, art few in num- 
ber to be reckoned among 
the thousands of Juda; yet 
out of thee shall one come 
forth to me, to be a ruler of 
Israel. 



Matt. ii. 6. 

[ Teypa-Krai 5ia rov rrpocpr]- 
rov •] Kal ffb BriBAeep. yrj 
'loiiSa, ovSa/jLoSs eAax'CTT} el ev 
rois riyefj.6cr:v 'IouSa- e/c crov 
yap e^eAevaerai -rtyovfxevos, o- 
CTTts- iroifiave'i rbv Aaov j.iov 
rbv 'IcpaTJA. 

[It is written by the pro- 
phet,] And thou Bethlehem, 
in the land of Juda, art not 
the least among the princes 
of Juda : for out of thee shall 
come a governor that shall 
rule my people Israel. 



Micah, v. 2. 

rrnn; »s&K3 rirrr? -vyy 

S^'id rwnh xv. 'k WQ 

: •?{*!?> *3 

But thou, Beth-lehem Eph- 
rata, though thou be little 
among the thousands of 
Judah, yet out of thee shall 
he come forth unto me, that 
is to be ruler in Israel. 



1 This quotation agrees very nearly with the LXX. 

2 Here the evangelist agrees neither with the Hebrew nor the LXX., but follows his 
own manner freely. The discrepancy, caused by the insertion of the negative ov8a/j.Hs in 
Matthew, between the Gospel and the Hebrew as well as the LXX., is best removed by in- 
serting though in the Hebrew, as our translators have done. This is preferable to the 
method of Grotius, who reads the Hebrew and LXX. interrogatively, art thou too little See, 
an expedient favoured by the Syriac version, and by D. in Matthew, which has /*?; inter- 
rogative instead of oi/Sap.a>s. Palfrey (The Eelation between Judaism and Christianity, 
p. 34.) errs in thinking that the reference in the original is not to the place of Messiah's 
birth, but to the origin of his family. It is obvious that e^eAevcreraL means birth ; and that 
the corresponding XV* has the same sense is proved by Gen. xvii. 6., compared with Heb. 
vii. 5. See Meyer on the passage. 

VOL. II. I 



114 



Biblical Criticism, 



(3.) Hosea, xi. 1. 

'E£ AiyvnTOv jueTe/caAetra 

TE TiKVa aVTOV. 



Out of Egypt have I called 
his children. 



(4.) Jer. xxxviii. 15. 

4>coi>)) eV 'Pe>.u.a rjKovcrdy] 6pr]- 
vov koa K\av9/j.ov ital 68vpu.ov • 
'Pox^A awoicXaiofxivri ovicfjdeXe 
TravaaaOcu iirl tois viols avTTJs, 
otl ovk elaiv. 



A voice was heard in Ra- 
ma, of lamentation, and of 
weeping, and wailing ; Ra- 
chel would not cease weeping 
for her children, hecause they 
are not. 



(5.) 



(6.) Is. xl. 3, &c. 

$wvt} Pooivtos eV rfj eprifJ-q:, 
'KTOiixdcraTe t\\v 6Sbv icvpiov, 
evOeias iroirjTe tlxs rpljiovs tov 
6eov riftaiv. 



Matt. ii. 15. 

[ ' \va tr\ripcA>Ofj to p-qQev virb 
iwpiov Sia tov irpo<p-r]Tov, Ae- 
yovTOs ] 'E£ AiyvKTov iKa- 
Aecra tov vlov fxov. 

[That it might be fulfilled 
which was spoken of the 
Lord by the prophet, saying,] 
Out of Egypt have I called 
my son. 

Matt. ii. 18. 

[ Tdre iirXripcidr] to pr^O'tv 
Sia 'lepef/.iov tov wpocpriTou 
KiyovTos "] $oov}i ev 'Pa/J.3, 
7]Kovff6ri, K\avOjj.bs kcu dSvpfios 
iroA-vs, 'Pax'jA KXaiovaa Tt\ 
TtKva. avTris, nai ovk riBeArjffev 
TrapaKAitOrivai, otl ovk elaiu. 

[Then was fulfilled that 
which was spoken by Jeremy 
the prophet, saying,] In Ra- 
ma Avas there a voice heard, 
lamentation, and weeping, 
and great mourning, Rachel 
weeping for her children, and 
would not be comforted, be- 
cause they are not. 

Matt. ii. 23. 

[oirws TT\rjpcc9ij to pTjdev 8ia 
tuv trpocp tjtcDj'-] 6tl Na{iopa?os 
K\7]d-f)aeTai. 

[That it might be fulfilled 
which was spoken by the 
prophets,] He shall be called 
a Nazarene. 

Matt. Hi. 3. 
['O p7]9e\s Bia 'Htraiov tov 
TTp0<pl'lTOV XeyovTos •] $ccv}) 
{Sooji>tos iu t?7 iprjfxw, 4tol/j.o- 
iraTe t))v 6Sbv Kvpiov, evdelas 
7roien-e Tt\s Tpifiovs ai/Tod. 



Hosea, xi. 1. 



And called my son out of 
Egypt. 



Jer. xxxi. 15. 

A voice was heard in Ra- 
mah, lamentation, and bitter 
weeping : Rachel weeping 
for her children, refused to 
be comforted for her chil- 
dren, because they were not. 



Isaiah xi. i.; Zechar. vi. 12., 
iii, 8.; Jerem. xxiii. 5.; 
xxxiii. 15. 



Is. xl. 3, &c. 

•q-tf -ins i3:i£3 K*tfp h)p 



3 This is altered from the LXX. and made more conformable to the Hebrew. It is super- 
fluous to refer to the ridiculous notion that the passage is no quotation at all, in accord- 
ance with the expression spoken by the prophet. It was a traditionary prophecy which the 
prophet spoke but did not write ! An evasion of a supposed difficulty is not a solution of it. 

4 This passage is cited neither after the Hebrew nor the Greek exactly. It is wholly 
improbable to suppose with Randolph (The Prophecies and other Texts cited in the New 
Testament, compared with the Hebrew Original and with the Septuagint Version, &c, 
p. 27.), that it might possibly be taken from another Greek translation than the LXX. In 
changing the Greek, the writer comes nearer to the Hebrew. 

5 Here it is hardly worth while to mention the hypothesis, which is nothing but an eva- 
sion of the difficulty, that the evangelist refers to what the prophets spoke but did not 
write. He alludes to Isaiah xi. 1 . in particular, not to Judges xiii. 5. where Samson is 
called a Nazarite, as Palfrey thinks. But because he joined with it in his mind other pas- 
sages where the Messiah is styled HO)L branch, ecmivalent to "1V3 shoot, he uses the 
plural, by the prophets. Nazareth had its name "1X3, because it was a, feeble twig, an insig- 
nificant place exposed to contempt ; and in the fact that Jesus chose that despised place, 
there was at the same time a fulfilment of the prophecy that he was to be a humble sprout 
from the stem of Jesse. " There is a truth in this," says Tholuck, " only it seems to us a 
contracted religious view that seeks in such accidentals a divine intention." — Has Alte 
Testament im Neuen Testament, p. 46., 4th edition. 

6 This agrees almost verbatim with the LXX. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



11. 



The voice of one crying 
in the wilderness, Prepare ye 
the way of the Lord, make 
straight the paths of our God. 



(7.) Deut. viii. 3. 

Owe eV 'dprcp fx6vcp 0jcrerai 
6 dvOpuiiro?, aAA' iirl iravrl 
prjfxaTi rip eKiropevo/xevw Sid 
ar6p.aros 6eov (-qcrerai b &v- 
Gpwiros. 

Man shall not live by bread 
alone, but by every word that 
proceeds out of the mouth of 
God. 



[This is he that was spo- 
ken of by the prophet Esaias, 
saying,] The voice of one 
crying in the wilderness, Pre- 
pare ye the way of the Lord, 
make his paths straight. 

Matt. iv. 4. 
[TeypairTcu ■ ] Ovk eV ap- 
T(p fxSvcii £rjcrerai 6 &v9pocwos, 
aAA' iv iravrl pij/xari eKiropev- 
Ofievcp Sid arS/uaros deov. 

[It is written,] Man shall 
not live by bread alone, but 
by every word that proceed- 
ed! out of the mouth of God. 



The voice of him that 
crieth in the wilderness, Pre- 
pare ye the way of the Lord, 
make straight in the desert 
a high-way for our God. 

Deut. viii. 3. 

Man doth not live by bread 
only, but by every word that 
proceedeth out of the mouth 
of the Lord doth man live. 



(8.) Ps. xc. 11, 12. 

"On reus dyyeAois aurov 
ivreAetrai irepl crov, rov Sia- 
<pvAa£ai ere iv irdcrais rah dSols 
crov • ewl x ei P& v dpovcri ere, 
/j.7]ttot€ TrpoanSif/ris irpbs Aldov 
rbv irSSa crov. 

For he shall give his angels 
charge concerning thee, to 
keep thee in all thy ways. 
They shall bear thee up on 
their hands, lest at any time 
thou dash thy foot against a 
stone. 

(9.) Deut. vi. 16. 

Ovk eKireipdceis Kvpiov rbv 
6e6v crov. 



Matt. iv. 6. 
\Veypawrai ydp-~\ '6ri rots 
dyyeAois avrov evreAe?iai ire- 
pl cov, Kal iirl x f 'P®" dpov- 
crlv ere, jxi\ irore Trpocrndifys 
Trpbs Aidov rbv ir6Sa crov. 



[For it is written,] He 
shall give his angels charge 
concerning thee ; and in their 
hands they shall bear thee 
up, lest at any time thou 
dash thy foot against a stone. 

Matt. iv. 7. 
[llaAiz/ yeyparrrai •] Ovk 
eKirei.pi.aeis Kvpiov rhv dedvaov. 



Ps. xci. 11, 12. 
if? - njtf) V3S^>?5 »3 

|3«| t\un-\z *\mty\ D?B3 
' :fe 

He shall give his angels 
charge over thee, to keep 
thee in all thy ways. They 
shall bear thee up in their 
hands, lest thou dash thy 
foot against a stone. 

Deut. vi. 16. 

ninj-'n^ mn & 



Thou shalt not tempt the [It is written again,] Thou Ye shall not tempt the 
Lord thy God. shalt not tempt the Lord thy Lord your God. 

God. 



(10.) Deut. vi. 13. 

Kvpiov rhv 8e6v crov epofii)- 
6r]cry Kal avr$ fJ.6vcp Aarpev- 
crcis- 

Thou shalt fear the Lord 
thy God, and him only shalt 
thou serve. 



(11.) Is. ix. 1,2. 

Tax" votei X^P a ZafiovAwv, 
T] yr\ 'Ne(p6aAl/x, Kal ol Aoiirol 
of r\\v ira.pa.Aiav, Kal itepav rod 
'lopodvov, TaAiAaia rSiv idvwv. 
6 Aabs o iropevo/xevos iv ck6- 



Matt. iv. 10. 

[Teypairrai ydp ] Kvpiov 
top 6e6v crov irpocrKvvijcreis Kal 
ourq? llSvcc Aarpevcreis. 

[For it is written,] Thou 
shalt worship the Lord thy 
God, and him only shalt thou 
serve. 

Matt.iv. 15, 16. 
[ "iva irAfjpadrj to prjOev Sid 
'Hcraiov rod irpo(prirov Aeyov- 
ros "] T^ ZafiovAwv Kal 7?) 
'NecpdaAel/x, oSbv 6aAdcro-ris 
irepav rov 'lopSdvov, TaAiAaia 



ayn 



Deut. \ 



. 13. 

rrirv 



•nt? 



Thou shalt fear the Lord 
thy God, and serve him. 



Is. ix. 1, 2. 

tJTED "OH &»n ?fJ3 l^5n 



' This is taken from the LXX. 

11 The present passage is freely rendered from the Hebrew; but the received version in 
Isa. viii. 23., ix. 1., is incorrect. It ought to be, "As the former time brought into re- 
proach the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, so the succeeding time brings into 
honour the way of the sea," &c. 



116 



Biblical Criticism. 



ret, VSere (pS>s fi4ya • ol naroi- 
Kovvres ev x<*>P a crK '? Go.vo.rov, 
(pus Aa/xipei i<p" vfias. 



Act quickly, O land of 
Zabulon, land of Nephthalim, 
and the rest inhabiting the 
sea coast, and the land be- 
yond Jordan, Galilee of the 
Gentiles. O people walking 
in darkness, behold a great 
light ! ye that dwell in the 
region, and shadow of death, 
a light shall shine upon you. 



ruv eQvwv, 6 Aabs 6 KaQrifitvos 
if (TKOTia (pus eloev peya, Kal 
toTs Ktx6r]/x4voLS eV X<*>P a Ka ' 
o~KLa Qavdrov, <pu>s dvirziAzv 

O.VT0LS. 



[That it might be fulfilled 
which was spoken by Esaias, 
the prophet, saying,] The 
land of Zabulon, and the 
land of Nephthalim, by the 
way of the sea, beyond Jor- 
dan, Galilee of the Gentiles; 
the people which sat in dark- 
ness saw great light: and to 
them which sat in the region 
and shadow of death, light is 
sprung up, 



■>3£f> b)i$ nix -iso sj^na 

When at the first he lightly 
afflicted the land of Zelmhm 
and the land of Naphtali, 
and afterward did more 
grievously afflict her hy the 
way of the sea, beyond Jor- 
dan, in Galilee of the nations. 
The people that walked in 
darkness have seen a great 
light : they that dwell in the 
land of the shadow of death, 
upon them hath the light 
shined. 



(12.) 



Is. liii. 4. 



Ot/ros ras d/xaprias rj/xwy 
(pepa Kal irepl rjfJLUv dovvarai ■ 



He bears our sins, and is 
pained for us. 



Matt. viii. 17. 

[ "Onus irArjpooOfj rb prjQev 
Zia 'Haatov rod TrpocpriTov 
Aiyovros •] Avrbs ras dadz- 
velas 7)Ijlwv eAaSei/ Kal ras v6- 
aovs eSdaraaev. 

[That it might be fulfilled 
which was spoken by Esaias, 
the prophet, saying,] Him- 
self took our infirmities, and 
bare our sicknesses. 



Is. liii. 4. 

*ty\ mh -ir^n ps 



He hath borne our griefs, 
and carried our sorrows. 



(13.) Hosea, vi. 6. 
"EAeos 64Au f) dvaiav ' 

I will have r 
than sacrifice. 



father 



Matt. ix. 13. (Comp.No. 13.) Hosea, vi. 6. 

[Madere ri iffrivl "EAeos , -,-»_.»-L t k »«.,»«_ ___ .._ 

esL K a\ ov evo-iav. J ' n H *A **W n ?D * 

[Learn what that meaneth,] I desired mercy, and not 

I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, 
sacrifice. 



(14.) Mai. iii. 1. 

'iSov i^awoareAAco rbv dy- 
yeA6v fxov, Kal £iri§Aeiperai 
oSbv irpb irpoaunrov fxov 



Behold, I send forth my 
messenger, and he shall sur- 
vey the way before me. 



(15.) Hosea, vi. 6. 
"EAzos QiAca f) Bvaiav ■ 



I will have mercy 
than sacrifice. 



•ather 



Matt. xi. 10. 

[TeypairraL •] 'ISov [e7<i>] 
diroar&AAu rhv dyyzAdv fxov 
irpb irpoawTrov aov, Kal Kara- 
CKevdcrti ttjv 63oV aov ip.Tzpo- 
ffQiv aov. 

[It is written,] Behold, I 
send my messenger before 
thy face, which shall prepare 
thy way before thee. 

Matt. xii. 7. fSee No. 13.) 
"EAeos 8eAu Kal ov Qvaiav. 

I will have mercy and not 
sacrifice. 



Mai. iii. 1. 

Behold, I will send my 
messenger, and he shall pre- 
pare the way before me. 



Hosea, vi. 6. 

I desired mercy, and not 
sacrifice. 



14 This citation agrees neither with the Hebrew nor the LXX. : irpb irpoadinrov aov is 
inserted; and in it, as well as in z^irpoadiv aov, the second person is put, instead of the first 
in Hebrew. Thus it is represented as an address of God to Messiah. The sense is sub- 
stantially the same. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the Neio. 



117 



(16.) Is. xlii. 1, &c. 

'laKuiS & Trots fiov, avriXi]- 
■tyofxai avrov ' 'IcrpcnjA 6 e/cAe/c- 
tos fiov, Trpoo-eSe^aro avrbv r\ 
ipvxh V-ov, eS&Ka rb irvevfid 
fiov eV avrov, Kpio~iv rots ed- 
vecnv Qoioei, ov KeKpd^erat 
ovSl dvi)aei, oiSh aKovadriaerai 
e£ta i) (puivrj avrov. KaAaiiov 
re8\acrfievov ov ffvvrpiif/ei, ical 
A'lVOV KaTTVltyflZVOV ov o~§4o~ei, 
aWa. els dAiiOeiav e^oiaei Kpi- 
criv. dvaXapdjei Kai ov &pav- 
adi)crerai, ews av drj ilr\ rrjs yrjs 
Kp'io~iv, Kai iirl ra ovofiari av- 
rov eOvr] eAiriovcriv. 



Jacob is my servant, I will 
help him : Israel is my cho- 
sen, my soul has accepted 
him. I have put my spirit 
upon him ; he shall bring 
forth judgment to the Gen- 
tiles. He shall not cry, nor 
lift up his voice, nor shall his 
voice be heard without. A 
bruised reed shall he not 
break, and smoking flax shall 
he not quench: but he shall 
bring forth judgment to truth. 
He shall shine out, and shall 
not be discouraged, until he 
have set judgment on the 
earth: and in his name shall 
the Gentiles trust. 



Matt. xii. 18. &c. 
["Iva Tr\ripa>dfj to pr)6ev Sid 
'Haatov rov Trpo(pr)rov Xey'ov- 

TOS •] 'lSob 6 7TCUS flOV OV 

rjperiTa, 6 ayaiT7]T6s fiov ov 
evSoKt\aev r) \f/vxv fiov ■ 8rjo-o) 
rb Trvevfid fiov eV avrbv, Kai 
Kp'iaiv rots e&veaiv dirayyeXe?. 
ovk epiffei bvSe Kpavydaei, ov- 
Se aKovoei ris ev rais -nXarei- 
ats T7]v cpwvjjv avrov • icdXafiov 
avvrerpififievov ov Kared^ei Kai 
Xivov rvcp6fievov ov oSeaet, ecus 
av 6K§dAj; els v7kos rijv Kpiaiv. 
Kai T<5 bv6fiari avroo edi'7] eX- 
irlovffiv. 



[That it might be fulfilled 
which was spoken by Esaias, 
the prophet, saying,] Behold 
my servant, whom I have 
chosen ; my beloved, in whom 
my soul is well pleased. I 
will put my spirit upon him, 
and he shall shew judgment 
to the Gentiles. He shall 
not strive nor cry; neither - 
shall any man hear his voice 
in the streets. A bruised 
reed shall he not break, and 
smoking flax shall he not 
quench, till he send forth 
judgment unto victory. And 
in his name shall the Gen- 
tiles trust. 



Is. xlii. 1, &c, 

vbv ''nm '•nna w%} nrifi 

ytp^-^l xb! N&} pyv 1 ! 

n6 yw) n3i? : i!?ip pna 

:osii ; p &wrib^ nap* 
Q^-ny yw j6] pid?? *6 
d^k inTirta vmi? p^| 

Behold my servant whom I 
uphold, mine elect in whom 
my soul delighteth : I have 
put my spirit upon him, he 
shall bring forth judgment to 
the Gentiles. He shall not 
cry, nor lift up, nor cause his 
voice to be heard in the 
street. A bruised reed shall 
he not break : and the smok- 
ing flax shall he not quench : 
he shall bring forth judg- 
ment unto truth. He shall 
not fail, nor be discouraged, 
till he have set judgment in 
the earth : and the isles shall 
wait for his law. 



(17.) Is. vi.9, &c. 

'Akotj aKovo-ere Kai ov fj.li 
o-vvr)re, Kai fSXeirovres f3Xe\f/e- 
Te Kai ov fir) ISrjre. enaxvvBTi 
yap i) KapSia rod Xaov rovrov, 
Kai toIs walv avrSiv fiapeais 
■%Kovaav, Kai robs S(p8aXfiovs 
tKaixt-waav. iiT]iroTe "Swat toIs 
b(p6a\fxols , rial rots wal o.kov- 
aajai, Kai rij KapSia crvvcoo-i Kai 
iwto-Tpexf/ccat, Kai Idcrofiai av- 

TOVS. 



Te shall hear indeed, but 
ye shall not understand; and 
ye shall see indeed, but ye 
shall not perceive. Eor the 



Matt. xiii. 14, &c. 

['AvaTrXrtpovTai t) 7rpo<p'i]- 
reia 'Hcrat'ov r) AeyowTcr] 'A- 
K017 a.Kovo-(:Te Kai ov ,ui] awr/re, 
Kai /SAeVofTes QAexpeTS Kai oi 
fit] iSrjre. eiraxvvBri yap 7) 
KapSia rov Aaov rovrov, Kai 
ro?s co&lv [_avru)v~\ fiapeccs f)- 
Kovcrav, Kai robs 6(p6a\/j.ovs 
o.vroiv bcduixvaav, /xii rrore ISai- 
aiv rot's 6(pda\fiols Kai rots 
coalv aKOvatccriv Kai rf] KapSia 
Tvvoco-iv Kai itriffrptywo-iv, Kai 
idaouat avrovs. 

[And in them is fulfilled 
the prophecy of Esaias, which 
saith,] By hearing ye shall 
hear, and shall not under- 



Is. vi. 9, &c. 

•I3»nr»-Ss : i y'mw -iypb 
*i55n i^txi r\-\n ayn-n 1 ?. 

: '"b xs-11 2W) 



Hearye indeed, but under- 
stand not; and see ye indeed, 
but perceive not. Make the 
heart of this people fat, and 



16 This quotation is partly from the LXX. and partly from the original. The only diffi- 
culty is in the rendering of 1")*?^?. by els vIkos. De Wette ( Exegetisch.es Handbuch zurn. 
N. T.) supposes that the evangelist had in his mind, or read as a gloss in the margin, the 
synonymous l"IV?.?, w^hich the LXX., agreeing with the Syriac, render by ej's v7kos, in 2 
Sam. ii. 26. and other places. 

17 This passage is cited according to the LXX. The Hebrew agrees in sense, and has 
not been obscured, as Randolph (p. 29.) thinks, by false pointing. 

I 3 



118 



Biblical Criticism. 



heart of this people has he- 
come gross, and their ears 
are dull of hearing, and their 
eyes have they closed ; lest 
they should see with their 
eyes, and understand with 
their heart, and be converted, 
and I should heal them. 



stand ; and seeing ye shall 
see, and shall not perceive. 
For this people's heart is 
waxed gross, and their ears 
are dull of hearing, and their 
eyes they have closed ; lest 
at any time they should see 
with their eyes, and hear 
with their ears, and should 
understand with their heart, 
and should be converted, and 
I should heal them. 



make their ears heavy, and 
shut their eyes : lest they see 
with then - eyes, and hear with 
their ears, and understand 
with their heart, and convert, 
and be healed. 



(18.) Ps. lxxviL 2. 

'Avoifa iv Tro.pa€o\a7s rb 
crrSfia fiov, (pQ4y£o/j.ai irpo- 
fiAT]/j.ara air apxijs. 



I will open my mouth in 
parables ; I will utter dark 
sayings which have been from 
the beginning. 



Matt. xiii. 35. 

[_"Ottccs irAiipooQfj rb p-qQlv 
did rod irpotprfrov \4yovros~\ 
'Avoi£u> ev irapa§oAcus rb ar6- 
fxa fiov, epeu|o/xcu KeKpv/xueva 
airb Kara§o\ris. 

[That it might be fulfilled 
which was spoken by the 
prophet, saying,] I will open 
my mouth in parables ; I will 
utter things which have been 
kept secret from the found- 
ation of the world. 



Ps. Ixxviii. 2. 



I will open my mouth in a 
parable; I will utter dark 
sayings of old. 



(19.) Ex. xx. 12, & xxi. 16. 

Tl/na rbv irarepa aov, leal 
ryjv jJ.t)ripaffov • 'O KaKoAoyoov 
itaripa avrov f) fi-qripa avrov 
TsAeuTTjfffJ Qavdrai. 

Honour thy father and thy 
mother. He that reviles his 
father or his mother shall 
surely die. 

(20.) Is. xxix. 13. 

'Eyyl^ei /J.0L 6 Xabs ovros 
iv ro) <TTo/xaT( avrov, Kal iv 
ro?s x sl ^ i<TiV Q-vt& v TijxSiai jj.s, 
7) 5e KapSia ai/ruv irippoo cbre- 
%ei air' ifiov • fidrrfv 8e cr4€oy- 
rai fie, SLSdffKOvres ivraA/xara 
dv9po)iro)V Kal SiScw/caAias. 

This people draw nigh to 
me with their mouth, and 
they honour me with their 
lips, but their heart is far 
from me : but in vain do they 
worship me, teaching the 
commandments and doctrines 
of men. 



Matt. xv. 4. 
[ 'O yap dibs zlirev] Tifia 
rbv irarepa Kal ri/v fj.7)repa, 
Kal 'O KaKoXoy&v irarepa 3} 
p.-qripa Qa.v6.ro) rzXevrarw. 

[For God said,] Honour 
thy father and mother; and 
he that curseth father or 
mother, let him die the death. 

Matt. xv. 8, 9. 

['Eirpotp-orevffev -Kepi vfxoov 
'Htra/'as \4ycDV~] 'O Aabs ov- 
ros rols x^'AemV jxe rip£, r\ 34 
KapSia avrwv ircppo) airdx eL <*"■' 
e/j.ov- \xdrr\v 5e a4§ovrai fxe Si- 
SdffKovres SidaffKaAtas evrdA- 
fiara dvQpdirccv. 

[Esaiah prophesied of you, 
saying,] This people draweth 
nigh unto me with their 
mouth, and honoureth me 
with their lips ; but their 
heart is far from me. But 
in vain they do worship me, 
teaching for doctrines the 
commandments of men. 



Ex. xx. 12, & xxi. 17. 

r-ii» \m) iok S^pp-i 

Honour thy father and thy 
mother. He that curseth his 
father or his mother shall 
surely be put to death. 

Is. xxix. 13. 

vs? n : tn oyn m: »| 
pm i3^ was vrjDbn-i 

This people draw near me 
with their mouth, and with 
their lips do honour me, but 
have removed their heart far 
from me, and their fear to- 
wards me is taught by the 
precept of men. 



(21.) Gen. ii. 24. Matt. xix. 5. 

"EveKev rovrov /caraAetyei [E?irei' - ] "EveKa rovrov /ca- 

IxvQpMros rbv rrarioa avrov raAetyei dvQpomos rbv narepa 



Gen. ii. 24. 



20 This citation is made from the LXX., but not exactly. The LXX. mistook Tiril for 
■inn), and therefore translated fiar^v oe, which the evangelist follows notwithstanding. 

21 From the LXX., who inserted ol S6o for the sake of emphasis. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



119 



Kal tV /xrjTepa, Kal irpotTKoX- 
ArjdT)<TtTcu Trpbs ttjv yvvatKa 
auTov' Kal eaourat oi ovo els 
adpica fiiav. 

Therefore shall a man 
leave his father and his mo- 



Kal tV ftiJTepa Kal Ko\\7]6i)ae- 
rai Ttj yvvaud avTOv, Kal eaov- 
Tai oi Svo els adpKa fj.iai'. 

[And said,] Eor this cause 
shall a man leave father and 



ther, and shall cleave to his mother, and shall cleave to 
wife, and they two shall be his wife; and they twain shall 



flesh. 



one flesh. 



•vrn in^? p:rn iss-nki 

Therefore shall a man leave 
his father and his mother, 
and shall cleave unto his 
wife: and they shall be one 



(22.) Ex. xx. 12, &c. 

Tipa top irarepa aov Kal 
T7ju /.Lrjrepa aov — Ov /xoixev- 
aeis ■ ov ;cAe'i|/eis - ov cpovevaeis' 
oil ^evSo/xapTvp-qaeis' 



Honour thy father and thy 
mother. Thou shalt not com- 
mit adultery. Thou shalt not 
steal. Thou shalt not kill. 
Thou shalt not bear false 
witness. 

(23.) Lev. xix. 18. 

Kal ayavi]aeis rbv irArjaiov 
crov a>s aeavTOV. 

And thou shalt love thy 
neighbour as thyself. 



Matt. xix. 18. 
[To •] Ov cpovevaeis, ov ixoi- 
X^vaeis, ov KAeij/eis, ov tyev- 
SofiapTvprjaeis, Tifxa rhv na- 
Tepa Kal tt\v fj.r]Tepa. 



Jesus said, Thou shalt do 
no murder; thou shalt not 
commit adultery; thou shalt 
not steal ; thou shalt not 
bear false witness ; honour 
thy father and thy mother. 

Matt. xix. 19. 

[Kal'] 'Ayawrjaeis rbv TrAr)- 
aiov aov ws aeavrSv. 

[And,] Thou shalt love 
thy neighbour as thyself. 



Ex. xx. 12, &c. 

n* 1 ? : ^n &6 : nvin 16 

ny. ^tp3 n;y : n *6 5 n^r» 

*!?# 

Honour thy father and thy 
mother. — Thou shalt not kill. 
Thou shalt not commit adul- 
tery Thou shalt not steal. 
Thou shalt not bear false 
witness. 

Lev. xix. 18. 

• SJ1D3 ^ pMty 

Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bour as thyself. 



(24.) Zcch. ix. 9. Matt. xxi. 5. 

Xaipe a<p6Spa Ovyarep ~2,iwv, ["iw irA-qpcaSfj to prjQev oia 

Kypvaae Svyarep 'lepovaaA-in-c rov irpocpr)TOv AeyovTOS'"] El> 

iSob 5 flaaiAebs epx^Tai °"<" Tare ttj SvyaTpl ~2.iwv 'l5ou 

S'iKatos Kal croitW, ai>Tbs irpa'vs o fiaaiXeis aov epx<=Tai aoi, 

Kal eTn§e§r]Kws iirl vnofyyiov irpa'vs Kal eniSeSrjKces Iirl ovov 

Kal iru>\ov viov. Kal iirl ttwAov vlbv virofyyiov. 



Rejoice greatly, daughter 
of Sion; proclaim it aloud, 
O daughter of Jerusalem : 
behold, the king is coming 
to thee, just, and a Saviour : 
he is meek, and riding on an 
ass, and a young foal. 



[That it might be fulfilled 
which was spoken by the 
prophet, saying,] Tell ye the 
daughter of Sion, Behold thy 
king cometh unto thee, meek, 
and sitting upon an ass, and 
a colt the foal of an ass . 



Zech. ix. 9. 

rynn fi»rri2 n'ap fyi 
Ni2:<^» nan D^wna 
»ty Nan ywu) pnv ^ 

Rejoice greatly, daugh- 
ter of Zion ; shout, daugh- 
ter of Jerusalem: Behold, 
thy king cometh unto thee: 
he is just, and having salva- 
tion; lowly, and riding upon 
an ass, and upon a colt the 
foal of an ass. 



(25.) Is. lvi. 7, & Jer.vii. 11. 

'O yap o!k6s f.i.ov oTkos irpoa- 
evxvs K\Ti9r)a€Tai iraat to?s 
edveaiv. M>) airt)\aiov KijaTuiv 
6 oIkos fxov ov imiceKAriTai to 
ovofj.6. fxov eV avT$ eKe7 evw- 
iriov vfxObv ; 

For my house shall be 



Is. lvi. 7, & Jer. vii. 11. 



Matt. xxi. 1.3. 
[TeypairTar'] 'O oIkos /j.ov 
oTkos Tvpoatvxvs K\r}9r)aeTat, v- 
fjLe?s Si avTbv 7roie?re anr)\atov D^VIf ri^ypn : D^yn'Pp? 

Xw ™ 1 '- *®nfc mn naa n;n 

[It is written,] My house Mine house shall be called 



:1 This is taken from Zech. ix. 9. The Greek was abandoned in some expressions, and 
the Hebrew more followed. The words efrrctTe — %i<&v are prefixed from Isa. lxii. 11. 

I 4 



120 



Biblical Criticism. 



called a house of prayer for 
all nations. Is my house, 
whereon my name is called, 
a den of robbers in your eyes? 



(26.) Ps. viii. 2. 

'E/c o-t6/j.<xtos vrjiricov Kal 

&7]Aa£6vT00V KCLTTIpTlffto <JXV0V 

Out of the mouth of babes 
and sucklings hast thou per- 
fected praise. 



(27.) Ps. cxvii. 22, 23. 

Aidov tv aveSoKifxaaav oi 
oiKoBop-ovvres, obros iyevi)dr) 
el? KecpaArjv ycovias. irapa. kv- 
piov iyevero avrr), Kal fan &av- 
HaaTi] pV b(pQaXp.Ois r\\xwv. 



The stone which the build- 
ers rejected, the same is be- 
come the head of the corner. 
This has been done of the 
Lord; and it is wonderful in 
our eyes. 



(28.) Deut. xxv. 5. 

'Eav Se KaroiKcecnv ab~eA<pol 
inl rb avrb, Kal avoQavri eh e{ 
avrcov, crirepfj.a 5e /xrj t) avrop 
ouk effTat 7) yvvr) rov Te8vr)K6- 
tos e£co avSpl p.7) iyyi^ovTf 6 
afieAtybs rod avSpbs avTrjs el- 
aeAei/aeTai irpbs avrrjv Kal Arj- 
Tperai avT-ryv eavT&S yvvaiKa Kal 
crvvoLKi\aei. avrfj. 

And if brethren should 
live together, and one of them 
should die, and should not 
have seed, the wife of the 
deceased shall not marry out 
of the family to a man not 
related : her husband's bro- 
ther shall go in to her, and 
shall take her to himself for 
a wife, and shall dwell with 
her. 

(29.) Ex. iii. 6. 

'Eyw elfii 6 debs rod TrarpSs 
<rov, debs 'A§paap. Kal debs 
'laaaic Kal debs 'laKwS' 



I am the God of thy father, 
the God of Abraham, and 
the God of Isaac, and the 
God of Jacob. 



shall be called the house of 
prayer, but ye have made it 
a den of thieves. 



Matt. xxi. 16. 
[OuSeVoTe aveyvoiTe-"] "On 
4k o-rS/jLaros vr)iri<au Kal dr]Aa- 

£6vTO0V KaT7]pTl<TC0 alvOV ■ 

[Have ye never read,] Out 
of the mouth of babes and 
sucklings thou hast perfected 
praise ? 

Matt. xxi. 42. 
[OvSeiroTe aveyvooTe ev Tails 
ypatyais-] Aidov tv cmeSoKL- 
fxaaav oi olKoSop-ovvTes, ovtos 
iyevi]0ri els Ke<paA)]v ycovias' 
jrapa Kvpiov iyevero avrr}, Kal 
eo~Tiv dav/xao-Tr] iv d<pdaA/j.o7s 

[Did ye never read in the 
Scriptures,] The stone which 
the builders rejected, the 
same is become the head of 
the corner : this is the Lord's 
doing, and it is marvellous 
in our eyes. 

Matt. xxii. 24. 
[Moovo-ys elnev,"] 'Eai/ ris 
airod&vr) ix7] %x oiv TeKva, 'Lva 
eiriya/j.§pevaeL 6 adeAtpbs ainov 
tt]v yvvaiKa avrov Kal avacr- 
tt)o~si avepjxa t&3 aSeAtpai av 

TOV. 



an house of prayer for all 
people. Is this house, which 
is called by my name, be- 
come a den of robbers in 
your eyes ? 

Ps. viii. 2. 

n-tD? Qip?) D^Viy *ap 
: tV 

Out of the mouth of babes 
and sucklings hast thou or- 
dained strength. 

Ps. cxvii. 22, 23. 

nri?n D^ian -id^d }38 

: wpm 

The stone which the build- 
ers refused, is become the 
head stone of the corner. 
This is the Lord's doing, it is 
marvellous in our eyes. 



Deut. xxv. 5. 

no-i t^rji wm ■ii^?.-»3 
•t6 '"bym p.-t nr\D im 
ny-inn ntiri-nm rt?.rjri 

[Moses said,] If a man die, If brethren dwell together, 

having no children, his bro- and one of them die and 

ther shall marry his wife, and have no child, the wife of 

raise up seed unto his brother, the dead shall not many 

without unto a stranger ; her 

husband's brother shall go in 

unto her, and take her to 

him to wife, and perform the 

duty of an husband's brother 

unto her. 



Matt. xxii. 32. 
[Ouk aveyvoore rb pT\Qev v/xiv 
virb rod deov AeyovTos'J 'Eyco 
el/xi 6 debs 'A€paap. Kal 6 debs 
'Icraofc Kal 6 debs 'laKccS; 

[Have ye not read that 
which was spoken unto you 
by God, saying.] I am the 
God of Abraham, and the 
God of Isaac, and the God 
of Jacob? 



Ex. iii. 6. 

^r6s ^nx »o^ *?3$ 

I am the God of thy father, 
the God of Abraham, the 
God of Isaac, and the God 
of Jacob. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



121 



(30.) Deut. vi. 5. 

Kal ayairfjcreis Kvpiov rbv 
£re6v crov e| oAfjs tt)s diavolas 
crov Kal e'| SAtjs ttjs tyvxys °~ov 
ical e£ o'Atjs tt)s Suva/Aids crov. 

And thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God with all thy 
mind, and with all thy soul, 
and all thy strength. 



Matt. xxii. 37. 
'AyaTrfjaeis Kvpwv rbv Beov 
crov 4v o\rj rfj Kapdlct crov Kal 
iv 3A?7 t?7 ^vxfj crov Kal eV 
oAr; rfj Siafoia. crov. 

Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart, 
and with all thy soul, and 
with all thy mind. 



Deut. vi. 5. 

And thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God with all thine 
heart, and with all thy soul, 
and with all thy might. 



(31.) Lev. xix. 18. 

Kal ayaifficreis rbv irXricriov 
crov ws creavTdv ' 

And thou shalt love thy 
neighbour as thyself. 



Matt. xxii. 39. 

'Ayain'icreis rbv irX-qcriov crov 
ws creavrdv. 

Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bour as thyself. 



Lev. xix. 18. 

Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bour as thvsclf. 



(32.) Ps. cix. 1. 

EItTSU 6 KVpiOS Tip KVpicjl jXOV 

Kddov 4k Sz^iiov p.ov eois av 
&di toi/s £x®P°v s °~ ou vtottocilov 
tuiv ttoSwv crov. 



The Lord said to my Lord, 
Sit thou on my right hand, 
until I make thine enemies 
thy footstool. 



Matt. xxii. 44. 

[AaueiS kv iruev/xaTL /axAei 
aiiTbv Kvpiov, \4yuv'] Elffei/ 
KvpLOS T(2 Kvplai fxov Kddov SK 
De^iwv /xov ecus av Ssw robs ix- 
0povs crov inroKOLTdi twv itoSuv 
crov. 

[David in spirit calls him 
Lord, saying,] The Lord said 
unto my Lord, Sit thou on 
my right hand, till I make 
thine enemies thy footstool. 



Ps. ex. I. 

^lab ri\n\ aw 



The Lord said unto my 
Lord, Sit thou at my right 
hand, untd I make thine 
enemies thy footstool. 



(33.) Zech. xiii. 7. 

naTa^are tovs noifxivas, 
Kal sKcrirdaaTi ra npSSara' 



Smite the shepherds, and 
draw out the sheep. 



Matt. xxvi. 31. 



[re7pa7rrai yap'"] Uara^w 
vbv iroifxeva, Kal SiaaKopirtcr- 
BricrovTat ra wpoSara T7/s wol- 

[For it is written,] I will 
smite the shepherd, and the the sheep shall be scattered 
sheep of the flock shall be 
scattered abroad. 



Zech. xiii. 7. 
Smite the shepherd, and 



(34.) Zech. xi. 13. 

KdQes ai/Tovs eh lb x u > Viv - 

TTjplOV, Kal CTK4lpO/J.at 61 SoKlflOV 

earir, bv Tp6nov iSoKifidcrdrju 



Matt, xxvii. 9, 10. Zech. xi. 13. 

[T^re 4w\7i P t&ev rb faeh *ri$ -ivrn-'pN -ins^ri 

5ia 'lep?fJ.(ov tov TrpocpfjTov ' ' > 

\4yovros-] Kal Z\a§oi> ra DiJvJ89 ^\>\ "1^8 1(?*0 



30 This passage is cited freely after the LXX. 

33 This is taken neither from the Hebrew nor the LXX., but quoted freely and independ- 
ently. The imperative ^D, rendered irard^are in the LXX., is changed into the future, 
because Jehovah commands. There is no reason for supposing with Oven (The Modes of 
Quotation used by the Evangelical Writers explained and vindicated, p. 34.) and Ean- 
dolph (p. 30.), that the Hebrew was at first ^X. 

34 This citation is attended with considerable difficulty. There is no passage of the kind 
in Jeremiah. It is found in Zech. xi. 13. Two MSS. with the Syriac and Persian leave 
out the name. One MS., and the later Syriac in the margin, read Zaxapiov. But Origen, 
Eusebius, Jerome, Augustine, all found the usual reading in the text ; and Augustine pre- 
fers it as the original one. Origen thought that the citation was taken from an apocryphal 
work of Jeremiah ; and Jerome actually found it in a composition of that nature given 
him by the Nazarenes. Lightfoot, referring to the most ancient division of the Old Testa- 



122 



Biblical Criticism. 



vwep axiTwv. Kal eKaSov robs 
rptaKovra apyvpovs Kal ive- 
€a\ov avrobs els rbv oIkov kv- 
piov els rb x^fevrrjpiov. 

Drop them into the fur- 
nace, and I will see if it is 
good metal, as I was proved 
for their sakes. And I took 
the thirty pieces of silver, 
and cast them into the fur- 
nace in the house of the 
Lord. 



rpiaKOvra dpyvpia, rrjv rifx))v 
rod rerifiri/J-evov, %v erifirjaavro 
inrb vlSiv 'icrpcnjA, Kal eSooKav 
avrd els rbv aypbv rod Kepa^e- 
o>s, Kadd auvera^ev /xoi Kvpios. 



*lp'|r-i aivfry nnp^i 
•h% njn* n»3 ink ^m\ 



[Then was fulfilled that Cast it unto the potter: a 
which was spoken by Jeremy goodly price that I was prized 
the prophet, saying,] And at of them. And I took the 
they took the thirty pieces thirty pieces of silver, and 
of silver, the price of him cast them to the potter in the 
that was valued, whom they house of the Lord, 
of the children of Israel did 
value ; and gave them for 
the potter's field, as the Lord 
appointed me. 



(35.) Ps. xxi. 1. 

'O Srebs 6 Serfs /jlov, tt/joV- 
X^s fiot. 'iva, ri eyKareAtires fie ; 

God, my God, attend 
to me : why hast thou for- 
saken me? 



Ps. xxii. 1. 

: fyjMtt nth $% ^» 



Matt, xxvii. 46. 

'H\l ^Ai Ati/ao. craSaKOavi ; 
rovreanv ®ee fiov dee jxov, 
'Iva ri fie eyKareAnres ; 

Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? My God, my God, why 
that is to say, My God, my hast thou forsaken me ? 
God, why hast thou forsaken 



(36 & 37.) Mai. iii. 1., and 
Is. xl. 3. 

'ISoii e^airocrreWw rbv &y* 
ye\6v fiov, Kal emfiAeij,erai 
6Sbv ivpb irpocrciirov flow 

Qcovrf Pocvyros ev rfj eprifico 
'Eroifidcrare rrjv 6b~bv Kvpiov, 
evOeias iroielre ras rpifiovs rod 
deov rffiwv. 



Behold, I send forth my 
messenger, and he shall sur- 
vey the way before me. 

The voice of one crying in 
the wilderness, Prepare ye 
the way of the Lord, make 
straight the paths of our 
God. 



Mark i. 2, 3. 

[_'0,s yeypairrai ev rw 'Hcra- 
ta rep 7rpo<J>7jT7;-] 'ISou enro- 
oreWco rbv ayyeXov fxov irpb 
irpoadwov ffou, ts Karaaitevdcrei 
rr]v 6S6v crow Qwv)) fioSovros ev 
rfj epjificc, eroifidaare ri]v odbv 
Kvpiov, evOeias 7roie?re rds rpi- 
fiovs avrov. 

[As it is written in the 
prophet Isaiah,] Behold, I 
send my messenger before 
thy face, which shall prepare 
thy way before thee . 

The voice of one crying in 
the wilderness, Prepare ye 
the way of the Lord, make 
his paths straight. 



Mai. iii. 1., and Is. xl. 3. 

-nss-i »p$e rbv ^513 

•132 *i2i»5 Kjip h)p 
nnnya viifj ninj yy% 

Behold, I will send my 
messenger, and he shall pre- 
pare the way before me. 

The voice of him. that 
crieth in the wilderness, Pre- 
pare ye the way of the Lord, 
make straight in the desert a 
highway for our God. 



ment books, and to Jeremiah standing first in the prophets, maintains that the common 
reading is correct, because Jeremiah stood at the head of the division from which the 
evangelist quoted. Others suppose that the mistake arose from a transcriber writing '\ep 
instead of Zs%- Mede and others think that Jeremiah wrote the latter part of the book of 
Zechariah, and therefore the quotation is eorrect. We must either adopt this opinion, or 
suppose that the apostle made a mistake in quoting from memory. 

The passage is freely used, so that its form here agrees neither with the Hebrew nor 
the LXX. "EKa&nv must be the third person singular, because of eScaKav following. Both 
the Hebrew and LXX have the first person. It is arbitrary to alter eSooKav into edo>Ka, 
and so make both the first person. The words rrjv ri^v—'lo-pa)}\ are by no means a good 

version of the Hebrew QH'^D VHi?} "1#K I^H Tj$. 

35 These words are from the Hebrew translated into Chaldee. Sabaclhani is now in the 
■Tareriim. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



123 



(38.) Is. vi. 9., &c. 

'Aicofj axovaere Kal ov /llt] 
avvr)re, Kal fiAeirovres /3Ae\J/e- 
re Ktxl ov fx.T] iStjte. eiraxuvdri 
yap 7/ KapSia rod Aaov tovtov, 
Kal tois walv avTCcv jSape'cus 
VlKoucrav, Kal tuvs dcp6a.AiJ.ovs 
iKa/xfivaav, fi-i} ttots ifSaxn toIs 
o<p6aA/xols, Kal tois walv a,Kov- 
awai, Kal t?7 KapSia avvtoai Kal 
eirio-Tp&fiuffi, Kal Idaofxai av- 

TOVS. 

Ye shall hear indeed, but 
ye shall not understand; and 
ye shall see indeed, but ye 
shall not perceive. For the 
heart of this people has be- 
come gross, and their ears 
are dull of hearing, and their 
eyes have they closed ; lest 
they should see with their 
eyes, and hear with their 
ears, and understand with 
their heart, and be converted, 
and I should heal them. 



Mark iv. 12. Is. vi. 9., &c. 

["Ira] PXtirovres PAtwwaiv W^ft-^) y">|^ -lyO^ 
Kal p.7) ISmaLV, Kal aKovovres 
aKovoxriu Kal fj.ri avviuatv, /.itj 
7roTe imaTptyaiaiv Kal arpedij 
avrols [to a,uaprf)yUaTa.] 



[That] seeing they may 
see, and not perceive ; and 
hearing they may hear, and 
not understand; lest at any 
time they should be con- 
verted, and [their sins] 
should be forgiven them. 



Ji 1 ? KQ}1 2V) 



Hear ye indeed, but under- 
stand not ; and see ye indeed, 
but perceive not. Make the 
heart of this people fat, and 
make their ears heavy, and 
shut their eyes : lest they see 
with their eyes, and hear 
with their ears, and under- 
stand with their heart, and 
convert, and be healed. 



(39.) Is. xxix. 13. 

'Eyyi£et jxoi 6 Aahs ovtos iv 
rw crrof-uaTi. aired', Kal iv to?s 
XeiAeaiv avrwv TifiHai /J.e, t] Sh 
KapSia. avTwv irofipic awixti a7r' 
ip.ov- [lar-qv 5e aefiovrai /J.e 
SiSdaKovres ivraA/xara av8pc!>- 
ttcov Kal SiSaaKaAias. 

This people draw nigh to 
me with their mouth, and 
they honour me with their 
lips, but their heart is far 
from me : but in vain do 
they worship me, teaching 
the commandments and doc- 
trines of men. 



Mark vii. 6, 7. Is. xxix. 13. 

^['Cls yjypa-Krai-] 'O Aahs VS2 HID CWn £>!$ ^3 ■ 
ovtos to7s x e ' L ^°~' iv M 6 Tl f J -°-, V i T T 

8e KapSia avruv -r6pf>w a7re' X e< P£H 'l*Z\ ^.-H?? VriSbbl 
air' efiov. (i6.tt]v Se aiPovrai . ._'.,. ' ... T \ '._,_ 

M e SiSdo-Kovres SiSaaKaAias iv- ^ D £$T VM1 W 
TdA/xara wdpfauv. . ni.B^lO D^>JK niV» 



[As it is written,] This 
people honoureth me with 
their lips, but their heart is 
far from me. 

Howbeit, in vain do they 
worship me, teaching for 
doctrines the command- 
ments of men. 



This people draw near me 
with their mouth, and with 
their lips do honour me, but 
have removed their heart far 
from me, and their fear to- 
ward me is taught by the 
precept of men. 



(40.) Ex. xx. 12., and 

xxi. 16. 

Ti/xa rhv iraripa aov Kal 

tt\v pLt]Tipa aov 'O KaKoAoywv 

iraripa avrov 3) jiT/i-epa avTov, 

TeAzvTrjcreL Oav&Tcp. 

Honour thy father and thy 
mother. He that reviles his 
father or his mother shall 

surely die. 



Mark vii. 1 0. 

[Mcoiro-rjs yap elirev - ] Tifxa 
rhv Traripa aov Kal rj]v /xrfTepa 
aov, Kai 'O KaKoAoywv iraripa 
fj /xrirepa davdrcii TeAevrdra). 

[For Moses said,] Honour 
thy father and thy mother; 
and, Whoso curseth father 
or mother, let him die the 
death. 



Ex. xx 12., and xxi. 17. 

•q^s-ns] *pn'N-r»s "123 

nto )m) V3K S^pp-i 
: rpv 

Honour thy father and thy 
mother. And" he that curseth 
his father or his mother, shall 
surely be put to death. 



(41.) 


Gen. i. 27. 


"Apaev 
avTois. 


Kal 0?jAu iiroivaev 



Gen. 5. 27. 



Mark x. 6. 
"Apaev Kal QrjAv i-Koit]aev 
aVTOVS [6 0ed?.] 

Male and female he made [God] made them male Male and female created 
them. and female, he them. 



124 



Biblical Criticism. 



(42.) Gen. ii. 24. 

"EveKev roijrov KaraXel^et 
avOpco-rros rbv Trarepa avrov 
Kal rrjv fj.7\repa, Kal irpoaKoA- 
A7j07Jcr6Tai Trpbs t)]v yvvaiKa 
avrov - /ecu ecrovrat ol 5vo els 
adpica fiiav. 

Therefore shall a man leave 
liis father and his mother, and 
shall cleave to his wife, and 
they two shall be one flesh. 

(43.) Ex. xx. 12., &c. 

Tfyta rbv Trarepa aov Kal ttjv 
fi-qrepa <rov — Ov fioixevcreis' 
ov K\e\j/eis' ou cpovsvcreis' ov 
x}/ev5oj.i.apTvprjO-eiS' % 



Honour thy father and thy 
mother. Thou shalt not 
commit adultery. Thou shalt 
not steal. Thou shalt not 
kill. Thou shalt not bear 
false witness. 

(44.) Is. lvi. 7., and Jer. 
vii. 11. 
'O yap oIk6s ^ov olicos npocr- 
evxvs K\7]8ii<TeTai iraai tols 
eQvecnv. Mt] o-n-i)Aaiov Kyaroiv 
6 olicSs /j.ov ov eTriKeKA-qrai to 
ovoj-id uov eV 01)79? e/cei evw- 
■jwv v/ju>v ; 

For my house shall be 
called a house of prayer for 
all nations. Is my house, 
whereon my name is called, 
a den of robbers in your 
eyes ? 

(45.) Fs. cxvii. 22, 23. 

Aidov bv aivedoKi^acrav ol 
olKoSo/j.ovvres, ovros eyevi)0rj 
eh Ke<pa\r]v ywvlas. irapa kv- 
piou eyevero avrr], Kal ecrri 
dav/jLaaTT) iv 6cp6a\fJ.o7s rj^wv. 



The stone which the builders 
rejected, the same is become 
the head of the corner. This 
has been done of the Lord; 
and it is wonderful in our 
eyes. 



Mark x. 7. Gen. ii. 24. 

eveKev rovrov KaraXefyei av- V5ST1S ^^"ITU* }3"?y 



OpcoTTOs rbv Trarepa avrov ,cai 

rrjv fiyripa. ical TrpoaicoWye-h- Vi}) lfitp&3 p3*7) ^"^l 

aerai rfj yvvaiid avrov, Kal e- 

aovrai ol Siio eis adpica fxiav. 



nn$ "#^> 



Therefore shall a man leave 
his father and his mother, 
and shall cleave unto his 
wife: and they shall be one 
flesh. 

Ex. xx. 12., &c. 

ny Tjynn ryyri &6 : rnjri 

[Thou knowest the com- Honour thy father and thy 

mandments,] Do not commit mother. — Thou shalt not kill, 

adultery. Do not kill, Do not Thou shalt not commit adul- 

steal, Do not bear false wit" tery. Thou shalt not steal, 

ness, Defraud not, Honour Thou shalt not bear false 

thy father and mother. witness. 



For this cause shall a man 
leave his father and mother, 
and cleave to his wife; and 
they twain shall be one flesh. 

Mark x. 19. 
[Tas ivroAas olSas •] Mr; 
(povevcrris, [ii] p.oixevcrris, /J-7] 
KAetyys, p-r) \pev8opaprvpi)o-ris, 
p.7] aTroarepi)oris, rip.a rbv Tra- 
repa aov Kal ri)v /XTjrepa aov. 



Mark xi. 1 7. 
[Ou yey parrrai •] 'O oJk6s 
Ij,ov olicos rrpoo-euxys K\r]6r)cre- 
rai irao-iv rols eOveaiv ; v/j.e?s 
oh eiroirjcrare avrbv o~Tri)kaiov 
Atjctt£>v. 



[Is it not written,] My 
house shall be called of all 
nations the house of prayer? 
but ye have made it a den of 
thieves. 



Mark xii. 10, II. 
[OuSe ttjv ypacpriv ravrrjv 
aveyvoire ;] Aidov bv aireSo- 
Ki^aoav 01 ol.Ko'Sop.ovvres , ovtos 
iyevi)dri els KecpaAyv yoovias' 
Ttapa icvpiov eyevero avrrj Kal 
ecrriv 6avfj.a(rrr] iv o<p6a\/j.o?s 

7]flUV. 

[Have ye not read this 
Scripture,] The stone which 
the builders rejected is be- 
come the head of the corner : 
This was the Lord's doing, 
and it is marvellous in our 



Is. lvi. 7., and Jer. vii. 11. 

D^vis nny^n : D^yir^ 
: D?r^y? i^jn»# 

For mine house shall be 
called an house of prayer for 
all people. Is this house, 
which is called by my name, 
become a den of robbers in 
your eyes ? 

Ps. cxviii 22, 23. 

T-\t6s)i ss*ii riN-t nnjrr 

The stone which the build- 
ers refused, is become the 
head stone of the corner. 
This is the Lord's doing ; it 
is marvellous in our eyes. 



(46.) Deut. xxv. 5. 

'Eav 8e KaroiKSiariv aSeKcpol 
eirl rb avrb, Kal airodavri eTs e£ 
avr&v, airepfxa Se fir] y avrcp, 



Mark xii. 19. 

[Mcovarjs eypaxpev rjfuv,"] on 



Deut. xxv. 5. 



. np-1 nn* dtik -13b«-»3 

eav rivos aSeXcpbs airodavy K al T = " ■ " r ■• • 

Kara\'nrri yvvulKa Kal rtKva ny ~tf~) "v"P^? J3-1 DH?0 1HN 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the Neiv. 



125 



ouk effTai fj yvvi) tov TeQvrjKO- 
tos %ioi ai'Spl fj.ii iyyi(pvri 6 
dSeXcpbs tov avSpbs axiTTJs elcr- 
eXevaerai Trpbs avrrjv Kal Ai';- 
\peTai avTiiv zavTcS yvvaxa 
Kal (TvvoiKriaiL airrj. 

And if brethren should 
live together, and one of 
them should die, and should 
not have seed, the wife of 
the deceased shall not marry 
out of the family to a man 
not related : her husband's 
brother shall go in to her, and 
shall take her to himself for a 
wife, and shall dwell withher. 



a<pfj, 'IvaKafSr, 6 aSehcpbsavTOv H^-inn nSrTJX'SN iTrin 
riiv "yvvaiKa. alnov Kal f|a- . " . 

s n^y n't npn^ nr trw 



vao-rrjari crirepfia tcv aSeXcp^ 
avrov. 



[Moses wrote unto us,] If If brethren dwell together, 

a man's brother die, and and one of them die and 

leave his wife behind him, have no child, the wife of the 

and leave no children, that dead shall not marrv without 



his brother should take his 
wife, and raise up seed unto 
his brother. 



unto a stranger: her hus- 
band's brother shall go in 
unto her, and take her to him 
to wife, and perform the duty 
of an husband's brother unto 
her. 



(47.) Ex. iii. 6. 

'E7W etfj.i 6 6ebs rod TrarpSs 
<tov, 6ebs 'Afipaafj. ko.1 debs 
'laazK Kal 6ebs 'laicwfS. 



I am the God of thy father, 
the God of Abraham, and 
the God of Isaac, and the 
God of Jacob. 



Mark xii. 26. 
[Owe aveyvaiTe Zv Trj /3t- 
fiXw Mujuffe'o)! em tov fidrov ] 
'E7Q) 6 6ebs 'Af3paafi kuI debs 
'laaaK ical 6ebs 'laKwf3 ; 



[Have ye not read in the 
book of Moses, in the bush- 
section,] I am the God of 
Abraham, and the God of Jacob 
Isaac, and the God of Jacob? 



Ex. iii. 6. 

*r6$ TON* ^8 »d5k 

I am the God of thy father, 
the God of Abraham, the 
God of Isaac, and the God of 



(4S.) Dcut, vi. 4, 5. 

"Aicoue 'IcrpaiiX, K&pios 6 6ebs 
71U.WV Kvpios els e<7Ti- real a- 
yairrio-eis Kvptov tov deov crov 
ef oA7js ttjs Stavolas crov, Kal 
e| o'Atjs ttjs \\<vxvs <rov, Kal e£ 
oAtjs tt]s Swdfieus crov. 



Hear, O Israel, the Lord 
our God is one Lord. And 
thou shalt love the Lord thy 
God with all thy mind, and 
with all thy soul, and all thy 
strength. 



Mark xii. 29, 30. 

[FIp^TTJ TtdvTCOV \Jvto\ti 
e'o'Tii']] "AKOve 'IcrpoTjA, Kvpws 
6 debs tjixuv Kvpios els eaTlv, 
Kal ayairliaeis Kvpiov Tbv Beov 
crov e'| Satjs ttjs KapSias crov 
Kal e| oAi)s tiis tyvxvs crov Kal 
e| o\rjs ttjs Siavolas crov Kal e| 
o'Atjs ttjs lcrx v °s °~°v- 

[The first of all the com- 
mandments is,] Hear, Is- 
rael; The Lord our God is 
one Lord: And thou shalt 
love the Lord thy God with 
all thy heart, and with all 
thy soul, and with all thy 
mind, and with all thy 
strength. 



Deut. vi. 4, 5. 

nfc P>5n«] J ina nin* 

131^33 «i*ij^n rnn* 

: ^sip-^331 sj^r^a-i 



Hear, O Israel, The Lord 
our God is one Lord. And 
thou shalt love the Lord thy 
God with all thine heart, and 
with all thy soul, and with 
all thy might. 



(49.) Lev. xix. 18. 

Kal ayairricreis Tbv ■KKrjcriov 



crov ccs creavTov. 



And thou shalt love thy 
neighbour as thyself. 



Mark xii. 31. 

[Aevrepa oixo'ia ovttj] 'A- 
yainicreis Tbv TrArirriov crov ws 
aeavTov. 

[The second is like unto 
it,] Thou shalt love thy 
neighbour as thyself. 



Lev. xix. 18. 

:^»3 *pnk 93.™ 



Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bour as thvself. 



(50.) Ps. cix. 1. 

EiTrei' Kvpios T<2 Kvpito fLOV 
Kddov eK oe^ioov fiov f'w av 6£> 
tovs ZxQpovs crov vttottoSiov TO!V 

TT03a'J' GOV. 



Mark xii. 36. 
[Aaue!5 tTirev eV tw nvev- 
fiari tw d"yiaj] E/7rei> Kvpios 
Tt2 Kvpiai fiov Ka6ov eK Se^iav 
fiov eoos av da> tovs exOpovs 
crov viroiroSiov tZv ttoSoiv aov. 



The Lord said to my Lord, [David said by the Holy 
Sit thou on my right hand, Ghost,] The Lord said unto 



Ps. ex. 1. 

3# ^'nx 1 ? rirn) dw 

The Lord said unto my 
Lo:d, Sit thou at my right 



126 



Biblical Criticism. 



until I make thine 
thy footstool. 



my Lord, Sit thou on my hand, until I make thine 
right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool, 
enemies thy footstool. 



(51.) Zech. xiii. 7. 

n<XTa£aTe robs iroi/xevas Kal 
eKcnracraTe to 7rpo/3ara. 



Smite the shepherds and 
draw out the sheep. 



Mark xiv. 27. 
[TfypaTrrai ■] IIara|a> rbv 
iroi/xeva, Kal SiaTKopTviadyo'ov- 
rai ra Trpofiara. 



Zech. xiii. 7. 



J jxsd 



[It is written,] I will smite Smite the shepherd, and 
the shepherd, and the sheep the sheep shall be scattered, 
shall be scattered. 



(52.) Is. liii. 12. 

Kal iv rols a.v6}xois iAoyiaBy. 

And he was numbered 
am on <? the transgressors. 



Is. liii. 12. 

: nip? a^s-n& 



Mark xv. 28. 

['Eir Ay pd/By y ypacprj y Ae. 
yovaa'J Kal /xera avd/xeev i\- 
oyiaOy. 

[The Scripture was ful- And he was numbered with 
filled, which saith,] And he the transgressors, 
was numbered with the trans- 
gressors. 



(53.) Ps. xxi. 2. 

'O Oebs 6 6e6s fxov, irpSffxes 
/j.oi, 'Iva ri iyKareAnrh fxe ; 



God, my God, attend 
to me: why hast thou for- 
saken me? 



Mark xv. 34. 
'EAcoJ" eAwt Aefxa aa/3ax- 
6avl ; 8 iariv /xeBep/xyvevd/xz- 
vov 'O Beds /xov 6 Beds /xou, els 
rl iyKareAnres fxe ; 

Eloi, Eloi, lama sabach- 
thani, which is, being inter- 
pi-eted, My God, my God, 
why hast thou forsaken me ? 



Ps. xxii. 1. 

: fy^MJi nnh fa fa 



My God, my God why 

hast thou forsaken me ? 



(54.) Mai. iv. 4, 5. 

Kal iSou eyw airoo-TeXH bfuv 
'HAtav rbv QeafS'tTyv irplv 
lABelv ryv y/xepav Kvpiov ryv 
/xeydAyv Kal iwupavy, os airo- 
Karaaryaei KP.pSiav irarpbs 
7rpbs vlbv Kal Kapdiav avBpd>- 
ttov irpbs rbv irAyaiov avrov ■ 



And, behold, I will send 
to you Elias the Thesbite, 
before the great and glorious 
day of the Lord comes ; who 
shall turn again the heart of 
the father to the son, and 
the heart of a man to his 
neighbour. 



Luke i. 17. 
Kal avrbs irpoeAevaerai evu>- 
iuov avrov ev irvevfxari Kal 
Suvd/xeL 'HAiov, e7r«rrpe'i|/ai 
KapSlas warepwv eirl reKva, Kal 
aireiBels ey (ppovycrei b~iKaiwv 



Mai. iv. 5, 6. 

m &3 1 ? ofey »dJk nun 
Di* sis *$fe k*3$3 nfa 



And he shall go before Behold, I will send you 
him in the spirit and power Elijah the prophet, before 
of Elias, to turn the hearts the coming of the great and 
of the fathers to the children, dreadful day of the Lord, 
and the disobedient to the And he shall turn the heart 
wisdom of the just. of the fathers to the children, 

and the heart of the children 
to their fathers. 



(55.) Ex. xiii. 2. 

'AylaoSv fxoi trav rtpwrSro- 
kov irpooroyeves Siavoiyov ira- 
crav /xyrpav. 

Sanctify to me every first- 
born, first produced, opening 
every womb. 



Luke ii. 23. 



Ex. xiii. 2. 



5 D! 3T^I 



[KaQcbs yeypaivrai ev riS "ItS? 
v6/xw Kvpiov ] '6tl 7raV &paev 
Siavo7yov fxyrpav ayiov rcS ku- 
picp KAy6r,aerai. 

[As it is written in the Sanctify unto me all the 
law of the Lord,] Every first-born, whatsoever open- 
male that openeth the womb eth the womb, 
shall be called holy to the 
Lord. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New, 



127 



(56.) Lev. xii. 8. 

Avo rpvy6vas r) ovo voaaovs 
irepicrrepcov • 

Two turtle-doves or two 
young pigeons. 



(57.) Is. xl. 3, 4, 5. 

^oiv)] jioSivros iv rfj ipf,p.u 
'Eroifx.dcraTe t?V 6Sbv Kvpiov, 
evBeias iroiTjTe ras rpiSovs tov 
Seov TjflSiv. irctaa <pdpay£ 7tAtj- 
pwdrtcreTai, Kal 7raV opoy Kcd 
ffovvbs Ta.TT€Lva'6riaeTai. Kal ecr- 
rai iravra ra aKo\id e<s eu0e?- 
av, Kal 7) rpax^a els treSia, Kal 
d(pdrj(T€Tat tj 8o'|a Kvpiov, Kal 
o^erai irarra ffdp£ rb ctcuttj- 
piov tov &eov. 



The voice of one crying in 
the wilderness, Prepare ye 
the way of the Lord, make 
straight the paths of our God. 
Every valley shall be filled, 
and every mountain and hill 
shall be brought low: and 
all the crooked ways shall 
become straight, and the 
rough places plain. And 
the glory of the Lord shall 
appear, and all flesh shall 
gee the salvation of God. 



Luke ii. 24. 
[KaTCt rb elpy\ixevov ev t<£ 
vou.01 Kvptov,"] £evyos Tpvyovoiv 
*/) Svo veoo~o~ovs ■nepiaTepSov. 

[According to that which 
is said in the law of the 
Lord,] A pair of turtle-doves 
or two young pigeons. 

Luke iii. 4, 5, 6. 
[\£ls yeypairrai iv @i§A(p 
Koywv 'Haaiov tov ivpo(priTOV~^ 
<&ixivt] {5oa>VTOS iv rfj epv/xcp, 
eTot/xdcraTe ttjv 6Sbv Kvpiov, 
evdeias TroieiTe ras TpiSovs 
avrov ' ■naaa (pdpay£ vkripw- 
d^o-erai Kal -rrdv opos Kal J3ov- 
vbs TaireiVood-riaeTai, Kal earat 
to; tJKoXid els ev3eias Kal at 
rpaxelai els odovs \eias, Kal 
o^erai Trciaa crap£ rb aojT7]piov 
tuv i&eou. 



[As it is written in the 
book of the words of Esaias 
the prophet, saying,] The 
voice of one crying in the 
wilderness, Prepare ye the 
way of the Lord, make his 
paths straight. Every valley 
shall be filled, and every 
mountain and hill shall be 
brought low; and the crook- 
ed shall be made straight, 
and the rough ways shall be 
made smooth ; and all flesh 
shall see the salvation of 
God. 

Luke iv. 4. 
[Teypainai •] on ovK eV 
&pra> fxovcp (rjaeTai 6 avdpo)- 
ttos, ctAA' en-t iravrl fn'iuan 
6eov. 

[It is written,] That man 
shall not live by bread alone, 
but by every word of God. 



(58.) Deut. viii. 3. 

Ovk iir' aprai p.6va> 0)aeTai 
6 ixvOpunros, aA.A' iirl iravrl p?'}- 
ixan tw eKiropevofxevcp Sid aro- 
fiaros i&sou (Vjcrerai o dvBpw- 
■kos. 

Man shall not live by bread 
alone, but by every word 
that proceeds out of the 
mouth of God shall man live. 

(59.) Deut. vi. 13. 

Kvpiov rbv &eov cov <po§T]- 
flTJtrj; Kal avTcc [movco Aarpev- 
o-eis. 

Thou shalt fear the Lord 
thy God, and him only shalt worship the Lord thy God, 
thou serve. and him only shalt thou 



Luke iv 8. 

[Teypairrai ■] Kvpiov rbv &e- 
6v cov Trpoo-Kvv7)aeis Kal ainw 
ixovcp Xarpevffeis. 

[It is written,] Thou shalt 



Lev. xii. 8. 

Two turtles, or two young 
pigeons. 



Is. si. 3, 4, 5. 

nnpi/2 vw?. mn'; ^ 

•iW' nvp.) in-^i. tMg$\ 

rfy&\ 5 nyp : ^ D^paini 
"ib*n-^3 -is^ n)r\) tq? 

The voice of him that 
crieth in the wilderness, Pre- 
pare ye the way of the Lord, 
make straight in the desert 
a high-way for our God. 
Every valley shall be exalt- 
ed, and every mountain and 
hill shall be made low : and 
the crooked shall be made 
straight, and the rough places 
plain. And the glory of the 
Lord shall be revealed, and 
all flesh shall see it together. 



Deut. viii. 3. 

: Q-ixn n£i' njn* 

Man doth not live by bread 
only, but by every word that 
proceedeth out of the mouth 
of the Lord doth man live. 

Deut. vi. 13. 

Tliou shalt fear the Lord 
thy God, and seiwe him. 



57 This is freely from the L XX . Why they have rb o-ccrripwv tov food for HIT it is not 
easy to tell. Dr. H. Owen suspects that they had a different word in their copv, but this 
is unlikely (The Modes of Quotation, &c. pp. 22, 23). We supposethe phrase to be an 
addition to the Hebrew, the translators omitting the adverb. 



128 



Biblical Criticism. 



(60.) Ps. xc. 11, 12. 

"On rols ayyeXois avrov 
evreXtirai. vepl aov rov 8ia- 
(pvXa^ai ae ev irdaais rats 6- 
Bo?s crov. eiri x €L P& v °.povai 
ae, lit) irore irpoaKo^-ns irpbs 
Xidov rbv n6Sa aov. 



For he shall give his an- 
gels charge concerning thee, 
to keep thee in all thy ways. 
They shall bear thee up on 
their hands, lest at any time 
thou dash thy foot against a 
stone. 



Luke iv. 10, 11. 
\Teypaitrai. yap •] on rols 
ayyeXois avrov ivreXelrat rrepl 
crov, tov SiacpvXd^ai ere, Kal 
'6ri eid x el P<*> v apovaiv ae, ivr\ 
wore irpoo-Koipys irpbs Xidov 
rbv ir65a aov. 



[For it is written,] He shall 
give his angels charge over 
thee, to keep thee. And in 
their hands they shall bear 
thee up, lest at any time 
thou dash thy foot against a 
stone. 



Ps. xci. 11, 12. 

For he shall give his 
angels charge over thee, to 
keep thee in all thy ways. 
They shall bear thee up in 
their hands, lest thou dash 
thy foot against a stone. 



(61.) Deut. vi. 16. 

Ovx eKTrsipdcreis xvptov tov 
3-eof crov 

Thou shalt not tempt the 
Lord thy God. 



Luke iv. 12. (Comp. No. 8.) Deut. vi. 16. 

[EfyijTar] Ovk iKireipdaeis HJn*Vl8 -IDJfl fcO 
Kvpiov rbv be6v aov. , -...^--L^. 

Ye shall not tempt the 
Lord your God. 



[It is said,] Thou shalt 
not tempt the Lord thy God. 



(62.) Is. lxi. 1, 2. 

Xlvev/xa Kvpiov eV eiie, ov e'l- 
veKev exP'Cf ^ evayyeXiaa- 
crdai wtwxo'is, airearaXKe fie 
Idcraadai rovs avvrerpi/J.fJ.evovs 
rr\v KapSiav, KTjpv^ai aixiJ-o.X(ii- 
Tois acpeaiv Kal rvipXois avd- 
fl\e\piv, KaXeaai iviavrbv Kv- 
piov deKrov 



The Spirit of the Lord is 
upon me, because he has 
anointed me ; he has sent 
me to preach glad tidings to 
the poor, to heal the broken 
in heart, to proclaim liberty 
to the captives, and recovery 
of sight to the blind ; to de- 
clare the acceptable year of 
the Lord. 



Luke iv. 18, 19. 
[ 7 Hy yzypa:ijj.h>ov~\ Uvevfia 
Kvpiov en' e/xe, ob e'lveKev expi- 
aev lie evayyeXiaaaOai tttoj- 
%o7s, airearaXKev f.ie \ldaaa8ai 
robs avvrerpifxjxevovs rrjv Kap- 
8lav,~] Kr)pv£ai alxfiaXdrois 
d(peaLU ical rv<pXo7s dvd§Xt\piv, 
airoarelXai reQpavajxevovs ev 
cupeaei, K7\pvi,ai eviavrbv Kvpiov 
SeKr6v. 

[It was written,] The Spi- 
rit of the Lord is upon me, 
because he hath anointed me 
to preach the gospel to the 
poor ; he hath sent me [to 
heal the broken-hearted] to 
preach deliverance to the 
captives, and recovering of 
sight to the blind, to set at 
liberty them that are bruised ; 
to preach the acceptable 
year of the Lord. 



Is. lxi. 1, 2. 

jyj ^y nin.j. tfig mi 

D^y -iba 1 ? »o'n njn; ngfo 
a<r*T3#A ^an)_ »jni$> 

N'n^ inip-np? d^-ids&i. 

The Spirit of the Lord 
God is upon me ; because the 
Lord hath anointed me to 
preach good tidings unto the 
meek ; he hath sent me to 
bind up the broken-hearted, 
to proclaim liberty to the 
captives, and the opening of 
the prison to them that are 
bound ; to proclaim the ac- 
ceptable year of the Lord. 



(63.) Mai. iii. 1. Luke vii. 27. 

'iSob e|a7r oar eXXu rbv &y- \Teypa-nrai'] 'iSov 

<yeX6v fiov, Ka\ eiriSXtyerai crreXXw rbv ayyeXov /.lov np 
68bv irpb irpocrdnrov fiov. -npoawTrov crov, os KaraaKevdaet 

rrjv 6o6v aov efinpoaOev aov. 

Behold, I send forth my [It is written,] Behold, I Behold, I will send my 



Mai. iii. 1. 



62 This passage is from the LXX., but not at all exactly. The words IdoaaBai — ri\v 
Kapoiav, according to ancient evidence, should be expunged from the text: a-noarelXai — 
a<peaei are from Isa. lviii. 6. Instead of the Hebrew njp-np?. D"H-1Di* : ?, to the prisoners 
the opening of the prison, the LXX. have rvcpXols avd§Xe\piv, recovery of sight to the blind, 
which the evangelist follows, though it is not a right translation. There is not the least 
ground for conjecturing that the Hebrew contained more than we now find in the MSS. 
and printed editions, as some have supposed. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



129 



messenger, and he shall sur- send my messenger before messenger, and he shall pre- 
vey the way before me. thy face, which shall prepare pare the way before me. 

thy way before thee. 



(64.) Is. vi. 9., &c. 

'Akotj aKOucrere Kal ov (ify 
(Tvvrjre, Kal jSA-eVovTes-jSAe'if ete 
Kal ov /U7) iSrjTe. iiraxvvOri yap 
7} Kapoia tov Kaov tovtov, Kal 
rols aifflv avTaiv fiapews t)Kov- 
ffav, Kal tovs ocpdaX/xovs €»ca/u- 
fxvffav, /utj ttots 18ooo~i rois b<p- 
6a\fj.0is, Kal toIs iialv ajeovirucri, 
Kal t?7 KapSia ffvvuffi Kal eVt- 
ffTpeif/aifft, Kal laao/xai. avrovs. 

Ye shall hear indeed, but 
ye shall not understand; and 
ye shall see indeed, but ye 
shall not perceive. For the 
heart of this people has be- 
come gross, and their ears 
are dull of hearing, and their 
eyes have they closed; lest 
they should see with their 
eyes, and hear with their 
ears, and understand with 
their heart, and be converted, 
and I should heal them. 



Luke viii. 10. 
a lva $\4ttovt€S fMi] fZ\eTra>ffiv •IJ'Qfl 
koi aKoiiovres pr) ffvviSiffiv. 






That seeing they might Hear ye indeed, butunder- 
not see, and hearing they stand not; and see ye indeed, 
might not understand. but perceive not. 



(65.) Deut. vi. 5. ; Lev. xix. 
18. 

Kal a,yairr)ffeis Kvpiov tov 
Se6v ffov ef oAtjs ttjs Stavoias 
ffov Kal e| b\rjs ttjs ipvxys o~°v 
Kal e'| oAtjj ttjs dvva.fj.eus crov. 

Kal ayaTri)o-cis Tbv ir\T)(Tiov 
<rov &s o-eavr6v 

And thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God with all thy 
mind, and with all thy soul, 
and all thy strength. 

And thou shalt love thy 
neighbour as thyself. 



Lute x. 27. 

'AyaTrr)ffeis Kvpiov Tbv &e6v 
crov e{ '6\t}s ttjs KapSlas ffov 
Kal eV o\r) ttj <|/i>xp o-ov Kal 
ev o\r} ttj iVxvi' ffov Kal iv u\r) 
ttj Siavoia o-ov, Kal Tbv ttAt/- 
clov o-ov ws o~eavr6v. 

Thou shalt love the Lord 
thy God with all thy heart, 
and with all thy soul, and 
with all thy strength, and 
with all thy mind ; and thy 
neighbour as thyself. 



Deut. vi. 5.; Lev. xix. 18. 

And thou shalt love the 
Lord thy God with all thine 
heart, and with all thy soul, 
and with all thy might. 

Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bour as thyself. 



(66.) Exod. xx. 12., &c. 

Tlfia Tbv -naTfpa ffov Kal 
Trjv /xriTepa ffov — Ov ixoix^v- 
aets' ov /cAe^eis* ov <povevfftis' 
ov ypevSofxapTvpriffeis' 



Honour thy father and thy 
mother. Thou shalt not 
commit adultery. Thou shalt 
not steal. Thou shalt not 
kill. Thou shalt not bear 
false witness. 



Luke xviii. 20. 
[Tas 4vT0\ds o75aj,] Mr) 
ixoixevo-ps, HV (povevaris, /J.rj 
KAtyrjs, yur; \p(vb~OfJ.apTvpr)ffT)S, 
Ti/xa Tbv iraTfpa ffov Kal "ntv 
fxriripa. 



[Thou knowest the com- 
mandments,] Do not com- 
mit adultery, Do not kill, 
Do not steal, Do not bear 
false witness, Honour thy 
father and mother. 



Ex. xx. 12., &c. 

Honour thy father and thy 
mother — Thou shalt not kill. 
Thou shalt not commit adul- 
tery. Thou shalt not steal. 
Thou shalt not bear false 
witness against thy neigh- 
bour. 



VOL. II. 



130 



Biblical Criticism. 



(67.) Is. lvi. 7., and Jer. vii. 
11. 

'O yap 61kSs pov oIkos irpoa- 
fvxvs KXv,8r)aeTai iraai to7s 
edveaiv. Mr] ffirr)\aiov XrjaTwv 
6 oIk6s [j.ov Ov eiriKeKXrjrat to 
ovofid [wv eV avTOp iicei ivci- 

1T10V VjJLiCV ; 

Por my house shall he 
called a house of prayer for 
all nations. Is my house, 
whereon my name is called, 
a den of robbers in your 
eyes? 



Luke xix. 46. 

[reypairTcu •] oti 6 oikos 
ixov dittos irpoaevxvs eaTiv v- 
y.eis Se avTdv kiroiiiaaTe ffiri)- 
Xaiov Xr/aTuv. 



[It is written,] My house 
is the house of prayer, but 
ye have made it a den of 
thieves. 



Is. lvi. 7., and Jer. vii. 11. 

tag*, rtafl-rva W3 »? 
n^ns rnypn : D^yrrb? 1 ? 
snjpj-nfs rrtri ivan nvi 
: D3\3 ,, y2 *.*^V"W 

For mine house shall be 
called an house of prayer for 
all people. Is this house, 
which is called by my name, 
become a den of robbers in 
your i 



(68.) Ps. cxvii. 22, 23. 

AiBov t>y aweSoKlfxaaav ol 
oIko8o/j.ovvt€S, ovtos eyevr)8r] 
els Knpa\i)v ycovias. 

The stone which the build- 
ers rejected, the same is be- 
come the head of the corner. 



Luke xx. 17. 

[Ti o3V icrrlv to yeypa/nfJLe- 
vov tovto ;] AiOov ov aiteb'o- 
Ki/iiaaav ol olKoSo/j.ovvTes, ov- 
tos iyevr)dr] els k e<paXrjv ycovias. 

[What is this then that is 
written,] The stone which 
the builders rejected, the 
same is become the head of 
the corner? 



Ps. cxviii. 22. 

The stone which the build- 
ers refused is become the 
head stone of the corner. 



(69.) Deut. xxv. 5. 

'Eav oh KaTOiKwaiv 6\SeX(pol 
iirl rb aurb, Kal airoddvr) *Ts e| 
avTu>v, awepfia Se fxrj r) avrw, 
ovk earai r) ywr) tov Tedvrj- 
kotos e£co avSpl fj.r) eyyi^ovri. 
6 ab~eX<pbs tov avdpbs avrrjs 
elaeXevaeTai irpbs avr^v Kal 
Xij^/eTai avTrjv eavTop yvvaiKa 
Kal avvoiKr)aei avrrj. 

And if brethren should live 
together, and one of them 
should die, and should not 
have seed, the wife of the 
deceased shall not marry 
out of the family to a man 
not related : her husband's 
brother shall go in to her, 
and shall take her to himself 
for a wife, and shall dwell 
with her. 



Luke xx. 28. 
[Mccvarjs eypatyev ^/UiV,] edv 
rivos aSeXcpbs airodavri ex cov 
yvvalxa, Kal ovtos aTeKvos fj, 
ha XaSrj 6 adeXpbs avTov ttjv 
yvvalKa Kal e{,avo.aTr)<nj airep/j.a 
Top aoeX(pop avTov. 



[Moses wrote unto us,] If 
any man's brother die, having 
a wife, and he die without 
children, that his brother 
should take his wife, and 
raise up seed unto his bro- 
ther. 



Deut. xxv. 5. 

n»-i ttft o>nx -in^r? 
-*6 i'p-pg p-i dds inx 

n^y riaj n»i] it tj»&6 
: hm!) n^x 1 ? \b Pirij&i 

If brethren dwell together, 
and one of them die and have 
no child, the wife of the dead 
shall not marry without unto 
a stranger: her husband's 
brother shall go in unto her, 
and take her to him to wife, 
and perform the duty of an 
husband's brother unto her. 



(70.) Ps. cix. 1. 

~ElTrev o Kvpios TOp Kvpiop flOV 
Kd9ov eK oe£ia>v /j.ov ecos &v 
ScS tow ex^povs crov viroirdSiov 
toov ttoS&v aov. 

The Lord said to my Lord, 
Sit thou on my right hand, 
until I make thine enemies 
thy footstool. 



Luke xx. 42, 43. 

[AauelS Xeyei ev fil§Xep toov 
ipaX/j.oav'2 ttnev Kvpios Top Kv- 
piop fxov Kd0ou 4k Se^todi' /jlov 
ews av Sco tovs ixfyovs aov 
viroiroSwj' t£v ■no'Soov aov ; 

[David saith in the book 
of Psalms,] The Lord said 
unto my Lord, Sit thou on 
my right hand, till I make 
thine enemies thy footstool. 



Ps. ex. 1. 

b# ^iyh nyr ox? 
n^n 1 ? cfrq 

The Lord said unto my 
Lord, Sit thou at my right 
hand, until I make thine 
enemies thy footstool. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the Neic. 



131 



(71.) Is. liii. 12. 

Kal ev vols avhfiois iAoyiadr]' 



And he was numbered 
among the transgressors. 



(72.) Ps. xxx. 6. 

Ets x^pv-s °~ ov ^apaQrjffo- 
[1.0,1 rb Trvevfid fiov. 



Is. liii. 12. 



Luke xxii. 37. 

[_Tovto rb yeypa.fj.fi.4vov 5e? 
Te\eo-8rjvar~\ bri Kal fierd av6- 
fioov eXoyiadr}. 

[This that is written must And he was numbered 
be accomplished,] And he with the transgressors, 
was reckoned 



Ps. xxxi. 5. 



transgressors. 

Luke xxiii. 46. 

Ely x^pa-s u" " imparWe/tai 
rb irvevp.d fjLov. 



Into thine hands will I Into thy hands I commend Into thine hand I commit 
commit my spirit. my spirit. my spirit. 



(73.) 



Is. xl. 3. 



John i. 23. 



$oivt] Powvtos iv rrj iprificp [KaOas elirep 'Uffatas 6 irpo- 

'E-roi.fi.ao- are -rr\v oSbv icvpiov, (prjr^s'J 'Ey& (poivrj fSoSjvros 

evdelas woirJTG ras rpifSovs rod iv -rfj ipv/J-cp, evdvvare tt\v db~bv 

6eov rifxuv. KVpiov. 



The voice of one crying [As said the prophet 

in the wilderness, Prepare Esaias,] I am the voice of 

ye the way of the Lord, make one crying in the wilderness, 

straight the paths of our Make straight the way of the 

God. Lord. 



(74.) Ps. lxviii. 10. 

'O fi?Aos tov oYkov aov na- 
r4<paye fxe' 

The zeal of thine house 
has eaten me up. 



John ii. 17. 

[reypa.fi.fi.4vov earlv^ ' O 
£rj\os rod oikov o-ov KaTarpd- 
yerai fie. 

[It is written,] The zeal 
of thine house hath eaten me 
up. 



(75.) Ps. Ixxvii. 24. 

Kal aprov ovpavov eSwKev 
auToIs. 



John vi. 31. 
[Ka0a>s io-TLV yeypafifxevov] 
Aprov en rod ovpavov iScoKev 
avrols <paye7v. 

And gave them the bread [As it is written,] He gave 
heaven. them bread from heaven to 

eat. 



Is. xl. 3. 

•133 ~\T}m snip b)p 
na-is/3 nr- nin* Tpi 

The voice of him that 
crieth in the wilderness, Pre- 
pare ye the way of the Lord, 
make straight in the desert a 
high-way for our God. 

Ps. Ixix. 10. 

Por the zeal of thine house 
hath eaten me up. 

Ps. lxxviii. 24. 



And had given them of 
the corn of heaven. 



(76.) Is. liv. 13. 

Kal irdvras robs vlovs aov 
SiSaKTobs 6eov' 

All thy sons to be taught 
of God. 



Is. liv. 1 3. 



John vi. 45. 

[EffTii' yeypafi.fi.4vov iv ro?s 
7rpo<J)';Tais - ] Kal ecrovrai irdv- 
res 5i5aKTol deov. 

[It is written in the pro- And all thy children shall 
phets,] And they shall be all be taught of the Lord, 
taught of God. 



(77.) 



John vii. 38. 
c O irurrevcov els ifii, [_Ka8u>s 
elirev tj ypa<pTi,~] irorafiol eic 



77 The original of this citation must be sought in various places, as Isa. Iv. 1., Iviii. 11., 
xliv. 3. The formula, as the Scripture saith, does not imply that one place is formally 
quoted. It here refers to the general tenor or spirit of various places. Whether Joel iii. 
23., Zech. xiv. 8., Ezek. xlvii. 1. 12. be of the number is questionable. — See my Sacred 
Hermeneutics, pp. 374, 375. 

K 2 



132 



Biblical Criticism. 



rrjs KoiXias avrov pevffovffiv 
vSaros Qwvtos. 

He that believeth on me, 
[as the Scripture hath said,] 
out of his belly shall flow 
rivers of living water. 



(78.) Deut. xix. 15. 

'EttI ffT6fxa.TOS Siio fiaprvpwv 
Kal iirl o-r6fxaTos rpiS>v fiaprv- 
pwv (TT-ficrerai irav prjfia. 

By the mouth of two wit- 
nesses, or hy the mouth of 
three witnesses, shall every 
Avord be established. 

(79.) Ps. Ixxxi. 6. 
'Ey&i siira 6eol iffre' 



John viii. 1 7. 
['Ej* t<j? vSfxqi 5e t<£ vfierfpep 
yiypairrai'"] '6ti Svo avdpdnrwv 
t) /j.apTvpia aArjflifs ecrriv. 

[It is written in your law,] 
That the testimony of two 
men is true. 



John x. 34. 
[Ovk iffriv yeypanfj-evov if 
t<£ vS/jlo) vfiwvll oti e7cu elirov 



I have said, Ye are Gods. [Is it not written in your 
law,] I said, Ye are gods? 



Deut. xix. 15. 

-by is Dny §f >Q-bv 

At the mouth of two wit- 
nesses, or at the mouth of 
three witnesses, shall the 
matter be established. 

Ps. lxxxii. 6. 
I have said, Ye are gods. 



(80.) Zech. ix. 9. John xii. 14, 15. 

Xaipe <T<pA8pct Qvyarep tiwv, [KaOtis iffriv yeypa/x/j.ei/ov''] 

Kr]pv(T<Te Ouyarep 'lepoviraXi}^ M$j <po$ov, Ovyarep 2(ajj> - ISob 

iSov 6 fiacriAevs (px^ral (Tot o fiaffi\evs <rov epxerai Ka8tf- 

S'ucaios Kal awfav, avTos Trpatis fievos «rl irwXov ovov. 
Kal eTTt§e§T]Kii>s inl viro^vyiov 
Kal irw\ov veov. 



[As it is written,] Fear 
not, daughter of Sion : be- 
hold, thy King cometh sitting 



Eejoice greatly, O daugb 
ter of Sion ; proclaim it a 
loud, O daughter of Jeru 
salem : behold, the King is on an ass's colt 
coming to thee, just, and a 
Saviour : he is meek, and 
riding on an ass and a young 
foal. 



Zech. ix. 9. 

: rmh'g 

Eejoice greatly, O daugh- 
ter of Zion ; shout, O daugh- 
ter of Jerusalem : behold, thy 
King cometh unto thee : he is 
just, and having salvation; 
lowly, and riding upon an 
ass, and upon a colt the foal 
of an ass. 



(81.) Is. liii. 1. 

Kvpie, tIs eiricrTevcre rfj aKofj 
rifxwv ; Kal 6 fipaxMV Kvpiov 
t'ivi airiKaKxxpQri ; 



O Lord, who has believed 
our report ? and to whom 
has the arm of the Lord been 
revealed ? 



John xii. 38. 
["Ira 6 \6yos 'Hffatov rov 

TTpO(plJTOV irA71pUl6j), OV 6?1T€V] 

Kvpie, ris emaTevcrev rrj aKoij 
rifj.a>v ; Kal 6 fipaxicvv Kvpiou 
tIvi air eKaAvcpdrj ; 

[That the saying of Esaias 
the prophet might be ful- 
filled, which he spake,] Lord, 
who hath believed our re- 
port ? and to whom hath the 
arm of the Lord been re- 
vealed ? 



Is. liii. 1. 

ynt-1 vftvwb ppgff »b 



Who hath believed our re- 
port? andtowhom is the arm 
of the Lord revealed ? 



80 This follows neither the Hebrew nor the LXX. John merely selected a few words to 
express what he wished to take from the prophet. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



133 



(82.) 



Is. vi. 10. 



'Eiraxvvdr] yap r) KapSia rov 
Aaov rovrov, Kal ro7s coalv av- 
rSiv /Sape'cos fJKOvcrav, Kal robs 
otpdaAfiovs tKafxixvcrav , lit) irore 
?5a><n rols 6(pda\/xo?s, Kal ro7s 
dial aKovcraifft, Kal rrj KapSia 
avvSiai Kal eTncrrpe^uicri, Kal 
idaoLiai avrovs. 

For the heart of this peo- 
ple has become gross, and 
their ears are dull of hearing, 
and their eyes have they 
closed ; lest they should see 
with their eyes, and hear with 
their ears, and understand 
with their heart, and be con- 
verted, and I should heal 
them. 

(83.) Ps.xl. 10. 

'O iaBlaiv ixprovs fxov eiieyd- 



John xii. 40. Is. vi. 10. 

l^Uev 'Hcrafor] TervcpAcc VJTN) tl-fD Dym^ ffl&Q 

Key avruv roiis 6<p0aA/j.ovs Kal T - T - • TT ' " ' 

TreTTupuiKev avrSiv rrjv KapSiav, i"I^Y"J?? J^H ^^H) 13? D 

Kal vofftnmv rrj KapdLa Kal U V?' *W- V ^^?'' "TO 

(TTpa<pQ(Tiv Kal idcro/xai avrovs. • °i^ ^QT) ^W) fni 



[Esaias said,] He hath 
blinded their eyes, and hard- 
ened their heart; that they 
should not see with their 
eyes, nor understand with 
their heart, and be converted, 
and I should heal them. 



John xiii. 18. 



Make the heart of this peo- 
ple fat, and make their ears 
heavy, and shut their eyes ; 
lest they see with their eyes, 
and hear with their ears, and 
understand with their heart, 
and convert, and be healed. 



Avvev eV e/ie irrepvicrfx6v 



Ps. xli. 9. 

fy &*?Jij $>$ bis 



["Iva r) ypa(prj irAripwdrj •] 
O rpwyecv ixtr efxov rbv &p- 
rov infjpev iir' fue rrjv rrrtpvav 
aiiTov. 

He who ate my bread, [That the Scripture may Mine own familiar friend 
lifted up his heel against me. be fulfilled,] He that eateth which did eat of my bread, 
bread with me, hath lifted up hath lifted up his heel against 
his heel against me. me. 



(84.) Ps. xxxiv. 19. 

Oi jucrovvris yue Swpedv. 



They hate me without a 
cause. 



John xv. 2 c 



Ps. xxxv. 19. 

: Dan >fcufc> 



["Ivo irAripcodfj 6 Aoyos 6 tv 
rw vSfiij) avrosv yeypanfj.evos-'] 
on ifiiariudv fie Saipedv. 

[That the word might be And fought against me 
fulfilled that is written in without a cause, 
their law,] They hated me 
without a cause. 



(85.) Ps. xxi. 19. 

Aie/xepiaavTO to, iLidrid llov 
SavroTs, Kal enl rbv l/u.aria/j.6v 
llov ZSaAov KXrjpov. 

They parted my garments 
among themselves, and cast 
lots upon my raiment. 



(86.) Ex. xii. 46. 

Kal oarovv oil o-vvrptyere 
air' alrov. 



John xix. 24. 

["Iva r) ypa<p7] TT\7]pcn6y •] 
Aiffiep'io-avTo ra. Ifidnd iiov 
iavrols, Kal errl rov lfj.ariafx6v 
fiov tgaXov KArjpov. 

[That the Scripture might 
be fulfilled,] They parted my 
raiment among them, and for 
my vesture they did cast lots. 

John xix. 36. 

[_"lva r) yparpri TrArjpwBfj''] 

'Oarovv ov avvrpL§r)o-erai av- 

TOV. 



Ps. xxii. 18. 

-hv.) bpb '5J3 •Ip^D* 

They part my garments 
among them, and cast lots 
upon my vesture. 

Ex. xii. 46. 



82 This quotation is made neither according to the Hebrew nor the LXX. The sense of 
the prophet is given. "What God commands the prophet to do in Isaiah's book, he is here 
represented as doing himself. Accordingly the third person stands at the beginning, 
though the first is allowed to remain at the end. 

84 Some think that this quotation was made from Ps. cix. 3. (cviii. 3., LXX.). It is 
rather from xxxv. 19. (xxxiv. 19., LXX), or Ixix. 5. (lxviii. 5., LXX.). It is from the 
LXX., but not verbally. 

86 This is taken from Exod. xii. 46., rather than Ps. xxxiii. 21., to which Dr. H. Owen re- 
fers it (p. 65.). It agrees more nearly with the LXX. than the Hebrew. What is there 
in the active voice is here spoken of in the passive. 

k 3 



134 



Biblical Criticism. 



And a bone of it ye shall [That the Scripture should 
not break. be fulfilled,] A bone of him 

shall not be broken. 



(67.) Zech. xii. 10. 

Kal ewi§Ae\povrai irpbs /xe, 
avO' wv na.T(»pxh<r avro ' 

And they shall look upon 
me, because they hare mock- 
ed me. 

(88.) Ps. lxviii. 26. 

revnOr)Ta> i) eiravAts avrwv 

ripTHXQJ/xeVT], Kal iv TOIS (TKTf]Vtil- 

/xaffiv auraiv /xtj earai <5 Karoi- 
k<5v. 

Let their habitation be made 
desolate, and let there be no 
inhabitant in their tents. 



(89.) Ps. cviii. 8. 

Kal rrjv eTncrKOTTT/v avrov 
Aa§oi erepos. 

And let another take his 
office of overseer. 

(90.) Joel ii. 28., &c. 

Kal earai /xera. favra Kal 
eKX^<2 airb rov Trvev/xar6s /xov 
eirl naaav adpita, Kal irpocpri- 
revoovatv ol v'.ol v/xwv Kal at 
dvyarepe* vfx£v, Kal ol irpea- 
fivrepoi v/xwv evvirvia evvirviaa- 
Q-/)(rovTai, Kal ol veaviaKoi v/xwv 
opdaeis u\povrai. Kal iirl robs 
SouAovs /xov Kal eirl ras SovAas 
ev Taif r)/x4pais eKeivais e/cx e< *> 
airb rov irvev/xarSs /xov. Kal 
cwaw repara ev ovpavw, Kal 
eirl tt}s 7'/)S al/xa ku.1 Trvp Kal 
ar/xioa ko.ttvov. 6 r/Atos fxe- 
raarpaipy)ae^ai els o-k6tos Kal 
i] aeAr)vrj els aT/xa, irplv iA6e7v 
t V il/xipav Kvpiov r^v /xeydAT/v 
Kal eirupavrj. Kal earai was 
os av eTriicaAeor/rai to Svojxa 
Kvpiov awOrjaerai' 



John xix. 37. 
[ "Zrepa ypaipr/ Aeyei''] "O- 
xpovrai els ov e^eKevrr/aav. 

[Another Scripture saith,] 
They shall look on him whom 
they pierced. 

Acts i. 20. 

[Teypairrai yap ev fil6Aq> 
i//aA,uiV] revT)9r)Tco 7] errav- 
Ais avrov eprj/xos, Kal /xrj earw 
6 KaroiKwv ev avrrj' 

[For it is written in the 
book of Psalms,] Let his 
habitation be desolate, and 
let no man dwell therein. 

Acts i. 20. 

[Kai*] T))v eTnffKOirr)V av- 
rov AaSe'ro erepos. 

[And,] His bishopric let 
another take. 

Acts ii. 17., &c. 
[Tb elprifxevov Sia, rov irpo- 
<pi)rov 'Ioi7)A'] Kal earai ev 
rais ia%arats Tj/xepais, Ae'7ei 
6 8ebs, eKxew airb rod irvev/xa- 
r6s /xov eirl iruaav adpKa, Kal 
irpocpr/revaovaiv ol viol v/xwv 
Kal at Ovyarepes v/xwv, Kal ol 
veavicrKoi v/xwv bpaaeis otyov- 
rat, Kal ol irpeaSvrepoi v/xwv 
ivvirviois evvwviaadriaovrar Kal 
ye eirl robs SovAovs /xov Kal iirl 
ras SovAas /xov iv rals rj/xepais 
eKeivais e/c x 6 ^ a7rb rov irvei/xa- 
r6s /xov, Kal Trpocpr/revaovaiv. 
Kal Swaw repara ev rep ovpavq 
&vw Kal ai/fxela eirl rr)s yr/s 
Karia, ai/xa Kal Trvp Kal ar/xiSa 
Kairvov. 6 i)Aios /xeraarpa- 
<pi)aerai els OKdros Kal r/ ae- 
Arjvr] els aT/xa, irplv eAOeiv rr/v 
Tj/xepav Kvpiov rfyv /xeyaAr/v Kal 
eTTMpavT]. Kal earai, iras ts 
av eTriKaAear/rai rb bvo/xa Kv- 
piov awdr/aerai. 



Neither shall ye break a 
bone thereof. 



Zech. xii. 10. 

And they shall look upon 
me whom they have pierced. 

Ps. lxix. 25. 

i lug* ^-bx Dp' ,l ?.n^? 

Let their habitation be de- 
solate ; and let none dwell in 
their tents. 

Ps.cix. 8. 

Let another take his office. 
Joel hi. 1., &c. 

QS^-ina j-ib^ffi rntibn 
m m ^ia^s n»nn d^d*3 

Kia *fih d-j 1 ? rn»n) yyrb 
mysn) bmn nin» ni» 



And it shall come to pass [That which was spoken And it shall come to pass 



87 This is from the LXX., but their rendering is abandoned for the literal sense of the 
Hebrew word ")£H' Some think, as do Eandolph and Newcome, that the evangelist read 
V2X him, instead of vS me, in the Hebrew, which is favoured by various ancient MSS. 
(above fifty) and a few old editions. But the reading is a mere correction. In the 
Hebrew, Messiah is represented as the speaker ; in John, he is spoken of. 

88 This is freely cited from the LXX. David predicates in the plural of his enemies, 
what the apostle applies to one person. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



135 



afterward, that I will pour 
out of my spirit upon all 
flesh ; and your sons and your 
daughters shall prophesy, and 
your old men shall dream 
dreams, and your young men 
shall see visions. And on 
my servants and on my hand- 
maids in those days will I 
pour out of my spirit. And 
I will show wonders in hea- 
ven and upon the earth, blood 
and fire, and vapour of smoke. 
The sun shall be turned into 
darkness, and the moon into 
blood, before the great and 
glorious day of the Lord 
come. And it shall come to 
pass, that whosoever shall 
call on the name of the Lord 
shall be saved. 



by the prophet Joel,] And 
it shall come to pass in the 
last days, saith God, I will 
pour out of my spirit upon 
all flesh ; and your sons and 
your daughters shall pro- 
phesy; and your young men 
shall see visions, and your 
old men shall dream dreams. 
And on my servants and on 
my handmaidens I will pour 
out in those days of my 
spirit ; and they shall pro- 
phesy. And I will show 
wonders in heaven above, 
and signs in the earth be- 
neath; blood, and fire, and 
vapour of smoke. The sun 
shall be turned into darkness, 
and the moon into blood, be- 
fore that great and notable 
day of the Lord come. And 
it shall come to pass, that 
whosoever shall call on the 
name of the Lord shall be 
saved. 



afterward, that I will pour 
out my spirit upon all flesh ; 
and your sons and your 
daughters shall prophesy, 
your old men shall dream 
dreams, your young men 
shall see visions : And also 
upon the servants and upon 
the handmaids in those days 
will I pour out my spirit. 
And I will show wonders in 
the heavens and in the earth, 
blood, and fire, and pillars of 
smoke. The sun shall be 
turned into darkness, and the 
moon into blood, before the 
great and the terrible day of 
the Lord come. And it shall 
come to pass, that whosoever 
shall call on the name of the 
Lord shall be delivered. 



(91.) Ps. xv. 8., &c. 

T\poap(hfj.i)v rbv Kvpiov evu- 
■kiuv /.lou Siairavrbs, on £k 8e- 
f icov ij.ov io~rlv 'Lva fx^i craXevBiZ. 
fiia rovro T)V(ppav6T) rj KapSia 
/.wv Kal riyaXXidaaTO t\ yXwa- 
ad fxov, en 5e ko.1 i) <xap£ fj.ov 
Karao-KiU'wcrei eV eArn'Si- '6ti 
ovk eyKaraXetyeLS r^v xpvxvf 
fj.vu els aSrjv, ovSe Suaeis -rbv 
ocrinv crov iSeiv h~ia<pBopdv. £y- 
vdiptads p.oi 6So'vs £wtjs. ttXij- 
pwveis Me ei(ppoavv7)s (J.era rov 
irpocrwirov crov. 

I foresaw*he Lord always 
before my face; for he is on 
my right hand that I should 
not be moved. Therefore 
my heart rejoiced, and my 
tongue exulted ; moreover 
also my flesh shall rest in 
hope: because thou wilt not 
leave my soul in hell, neither 
wilt thou suffer thine Holy 
One to see corruption. Thou 
hast made known to me the 
ways of life ; thou wilt fill 
me with joy with thy coun- 
tenance. 



Acts ii. 25., &c. 

[Aou€(5 yap Xeyet els av- 
t6v~\ Hpo(apwfj.T]v rbv Kvptou 
evcvwidv fiov Sta iravr6s, '6ti eK 
8e£iwv /xov ecrrlv, "va /xrj aaXev- 
Qu. Sia tovto -r}vfppdv8r) r] 
i<apb"ia fiov Kal jjyaXXidaaro 
T) yXwcrcrd /xov, %ri Se Kal 7] 
<jdp\ fxov KaTaffK-nvcZcrei ecp' iX- 
ttISi, oti ovk eyKaTaXetyeis ttjv 
i\ivxi]V fiov els "AiStjj/ oi/Se Sw- 
eets rbv ocriSv crov lSe7f 8ta<p- 
Bopav. eyvwpiads /xot oSovs 
fai}!, wXrjputaeis /xe ev(ppoavVT\s 
ixera tov irpoadiTTov o~ov. 

[For David speaketh con- 
cerning him,] I foresaw the 
Lord always before my face, 
for he is on my right hand, 
that I should not be moved: 
therefore did my heart re- 
joice, and my tongue was 
glad ; moreover also my flesh 
shall rest in hope: because 
thou wilt not leave my soul in 
hell, neither wilt thou suffer 
thine Holy One to see cor- 
ruption. Thou hast made 
known to me the ways of 
life; thou shalt make me full 
of joy with thy countenance. 



Ps. xvi. 8., &c. 

Ton *^j nin* »rMB> 

-*1« nh? bv\ >£ no"B> 

Ipn-N' 1 ? b'ixy 1 ? »tJ>?3 a'ryn 
: nny niaaij TTpn 
j?3B> a«o mfc rsynifl 

: Testis nincy 

I have set the Lord always 
before me: because he is at 
my right hand, I shall not be 
moved. Therefore my heart 
is glad, and my glory re- 
joiceth: my flesh also shall 
rest in hope. For thou wilt 
not leave my soul in hell ; 
neither wilt thou suffer thine 
Holy One to see corruption. 
Thou wilt show me the path 
of life : in thy presence is 
fulness of joy. 



91 This is from the LXX. For the Hebrew *JVji£> the Greek has 7rpoaipu>/xT]i>. *"1U3 
is translated v yXwcrad pov, and for JHt^ stands irX-np&o-eis /xe. In regard to the reading 
TTPD., we believe that the singular ^TPQ is probably the authentic one. 263 MSS. 
have it thus; so too all the ancient versions. — Comp. Davidson's Biblical Criticism, vol. 1., 
p. 395. 

k 4 



136 



Biblical Criticism, 



(92.) Ps. cix. l. 

E77T6V 5 KVpiOS Tto KVp'lCp /XOV 

KdBov £k 5«|i£ov /xov eccs av 6w 
robs exdpovs aov inroirdSiov 
ruv iroZmv (TOV. 

The Lord said to my Lord, 
Sit thou on my right hand, 
until I make thine enemies 
thy footstool. 



Acts ii. 34, 35. 

[AauelS Aeyer] EJwev 8 rcv- 
pios rep Kvpiif) /xov Kddov eie 
oej-Lwv /xov eus av 9<a robs ex- 
dpovs (TOV viroir68iov r<2v iroSwi' 
aov. 

[David saith,] The Lord 
said unto my Lord, Sit thou 
on my right hand until I 
make thy foes thy foot- 
stool. 



Ps. ex. 1. 

"^ 

The Lord said unto my 
Lord, Sit thou at my right 
hand, until I make thine ene- 
mies thy footstool. 



(93.) Deut. xviii. 15. 19. 

Tlpo<pT]T7)v e'/c rwv ab~eA<pwv 
aov ws e/xe avaarrjaet aoi kv- 
pios 6 9e6s crov, aurov aKovae- 

ade. Kal 6 HvdpuTros bs eav 

/xt] aKovarj '6o a av AaA-qari 6 
Trpo(pijTT]s skuvos eirl rw 6vS- 
/iari /xov, eyon eKSurhaw e£ av- 
rov. 



The Lord thy God shall 
raise up to thee a Prophet of 
thy brethren, like me ; him 
shall ye hear. And what- 
ever man shall not hearken 
to whatsoever words that 
prophet shall speak in my 
name, I will take vengeance 
on him. 



Acts iii. 22, 23. 
[ Mccvarjs /xev elirev] on 
irpo(pi)Ti)v vp.lv avaarijaet. kv- 
pios 6 debs vfxwv en rwv aSeA- 
<p5>v v/xwv ws e/xe' avrov o.kov- 
aeaOe Kara irdvra '6aa av 
AaAi/ar) npbs v/ias. earai oe, 
■n-aaa tyvxh V' s av /xtj aKovar/ 
tov irpocpJirov eKeivov e£oAe- 
6pgvdT)o~eTai £k tov Aaov. 



£Moses said,] A Prophet 
shall the Lord your God raise 
up unto you, of your brethren, 
like unto me; him shall ye 
hear in all things, whatsoever 
he shall say unto you. And 
it shall come to pass, that 
every soul which will not 
hear that prophet shall be 
destroyed from among the 
people. 



Deut. xviii. 15. 19. 

v"?x T\N : "Tin* ^ &»{£ 

V»t?>r*& i^'S K^Nn rr>ni : 
wa nai; -ig>g n?r^ 

The Lord thy God will 
raise up unto thee a Prophet 
from the midst of thee, of 
thy brethren, like unto me ; 
unto him ye shall hearken. 
And it shall come to pass, 
that whosoever shall not 
hearken unto my words 
which he shall speak in my 
name, I will require it of him. 



(94.) Gen. xxii. 18. 

Kal evev\oyr]6rjaovTai ev rep 
airep/xari aov iravra ra edvrj 
ttjs yfjs' 

And in thy seed shall all 
the nations of the earth be 
blessed. 



Acts iii. 25. Gen. xxii. 18. 

\_\eywv irpbs 'AgpaaV] Kal Mjj ^'3 TJJTlTn •1Dn3nni. 
iv rep airep/xari aov evevAoyr/- 

6-fjaovrai iraaai at irarptal rfjs • ^!?^0 

yijs. 

[Saying unto Abraham,] And in thy seed shall all 
And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be 
the kindreds of the earth be blessed, 
blessed. 



(95.) Ps. cxvii. 22, 23. 

AiBov tv aireSoKlfxaaav oi 
oltroBo/xovvres, ovros iyevrjdrj 
els itecpaA^v ycovias. -rrapa kv~ 
pio\, eyevero avrrj, Kal eari 
Oavfx^arT) ev 6cp6a\p.o7s Tjfxcov. 



The stone which the build- 
ers rejected, the same is be- 
come the head of the corner. 
This has been done of the 
Lord; and it is wonderful in 
our eyes. 



Acts iv. 11. 
Ovros eariv 5 Aidos 8 e|ou- 
Bevrjdels vcp' v/xCov ra>v 01K086- 
/xoov, 6 yev6/xevos els KecpaA^v 
ywvias. 



This is the stone which 
was set at nought of you 
builders, which is become the 
head of the corner. 



Ps. cxviii. 22, 23. 

htyn D^itoo -1DKD }3$ 
nin: n^D :n33 ssW^ 

The stone which the build- 
ers refused, is become the 
head stone of the corner. 
This is the Lord's doing ; it 
is marvellous in our eyes. 



93 This citation is taken neither from the LXX. nor the Hebrew. It seems to have been 
freely quoted from memory, and gives the true sense. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the Neio. 



137 



(96.) Ps. ii. 1, 2 

'I'-ari ecppva^av edvy, Kal 
Kaol efxeAer^aav Kevd ; irape- 
ffT-riaav ol 0affiAe7s ttjs yrjs, Kal 
ol dpxovTes ffwrixdrjaav eviro- 
avrb Kara rov Kvpiov, Kal Ka- 
ra tov xp'Ctou aurou. 



Wherefore did tbe heathen 
rage? and the nations ima- 
gine vain things ? The kings 
of the earth stood up, and 
the rulers gathered them- 
selves together, against the 
Lord and against his Christ. 



Acts ir. 25, 26. 
['O rov rraTpbs rjp.S>v 5ia 
■KvevfxaTos ayiov (TTd/j-aros Aav- 
elS iraiSSs aov elrrdv •] "iva ri 
e(ppva£av eQvq Kal Xao\ e/xe- 
Ae-rqaav Kevd ; rrapeaTrjaav ol 
0aaiAe7s rrjs yrjs Kal ol &p- 
Xovtss avvr)xOr)aav eirl rb 
avrh Kara rod Kvpiov Kal Kara, 
rod XpiffTOV avrov. 

[Who, by the mouth of thy 
servant David hath said,] 
Why did the heathen rage, 
and the people imagine vain 
things? The kings of the 
earth stood up, and the rulers 
were gathered together a- 
gainst the Lord and against 
his Christ. 



Ps. ii. 1, 2. 

-by irv-ntpu n^fn) jog 



Why do the heathen rage, 
and the people imagine a 
vain thing? The kings of 
the earth set themselves, and 
the rulers take counsel toge- 
ther, against the Lord, and 
against his anointed. 



(97.) Gen. xii. 1. 

y E£eA0e e/c rrjs yrjs aov 



Acts vii. 3. 



7.1 [Kal elirev irpbs avrSv] "E£- 

4k ttjs avyyeveias aov Kal 4k eAde e/c rrjs yrjs aov Kal [e«] 

tov oIkov tov TrarpSs o~ov Kal ttjs avyyeveias aov, Kal devpo 

Sevpo els ryv yijv %v &v <rot els ttjv yrjv %v av aoi Sel^co. 
Sd£<o. 



Go forth out of thy land 
and out of thy kindred, and 
out of the house of thy fa- 
ther, and come into the land 
which I shall shew thee. 



[And said unto him,] Get 
thee out of thy country, and 
from thy kindred, and come 
into the land which I shall 
shew thee. 



Gen. xii. 1. 

Get thee out of thy coun- 
try, and from thy kindred, 
and from thy • father's house, 
unto a land that I will shew 
thee. 



(98.) Gen. xv. 13, 14. 

TldpotKov earai to arrepfia 
aov ev yfj ovk ISia Kal SovAu>- 
aovatv avTobs Kal KaKiiaovaiv 
avTobs Kal Taireivwaovaiv av- 
tovs rerpaKOffia err), rb Be 
edvos cp av SovAevaaai Kpivw 
eyoi- fj.eTa 5e Tavra i£eAevaov- 
rai a>5e fj.era aTroaKtvrjs ttoA- 
Atjs. 



Acts vii. 6, 7. 
['EAaArjaev §e ovtoos 6 6e6s,~\ 
'St i eaTai rb airepfxa avTOv 
rrdpoiKov ev yfj aWorpia, Kal 
BovAwaovatv avrb Kal KaKci- 
aovaiv err/ TerpaKdffia. Kal 
rb edvos w av SovAevawaiv 
Kpivco eyw, 6 6ebs elirev, Kal 
jxera ravTa QeAevaovTai, Kal 
AaTpevaovaiv p.oi ev T<f> t6ttcjj 

TOVTCj). 



Gen. xv. 13, 14. 

H83 1VJX n*B» lA -, 3 
Dps* \sst[ D-nnyi nrib n^ 
ai) :n;^ nixo ya^ 

B>3ia -ikxj p-nnxi *3JS 



Thy seed shall be a so- 
journer in a land not their 
own, and they shall enslave 
them, and afflict them, and 
humble them four hundred 
years. And the nation whom- 
soever they shall serve, I will 
judge ; and after this, they 
shall come forth hither with 
much property. 



[And God spake on this 
wise,] That his seed should 
sojourn in a strange land ; 
and that they should bring 
them into bondage, and en- 
treat them evil four hundred 
years. And the nation to 
whom they shall be in bond- 
age will I judge, said God; 
and after that shall they come 
forth and serve me in this 
place. 



Know of a surety that thy 
seed shall be a stranger in a 
land that is not theirs, and 
shall serve them ; and they 
shall afflict them four hun- 
dred years. And also that 
nation whom they shall serve, 
will I judge: and afterward 
shall they come out with 
great substance. 



98 This is freely cited from the LXX. 
tovtu is added from Exod. iii. 12. 



6 debs eiirev is inserted ; and Kal Aarpevaovaiv— 



138 



Biblical Criticism. 



(99.) Gen. xlvi. 27. 

Tlaaai tyvx<*l oIkov 'laKui§ 
at elffe\9ov(rai /uera 'laKwS els 
Alyvmov tyvxal e§5ofj.i]Kovra- 

All the souls of the house 
of Jacob who came with 
Joseph into Egypt were se- 
venty-five souls. 

(100.) -— 



Acts vii. 14. 

'AiroffTeiAas 8e 'Iaiffrj^ jite- 
TtKaAeaaTo 'Ia/ccbg rbv ira- 
repa avrov Kal iracrav ttjj' 
avyyeveiav iv i|/ux°» s ISSo/iVj- 
Kovra irevre. 

Then sent Joseph, and 
called his father Jacob to 
him, and all his kindred, 
threescore and fifteen souls. 

Acts vii. 16. 

<}> cuviiaaTO 'ASpaafx ti/xtjs 
apyvptov irapa, rSiv vlwv 'Eyti- 
fjiwp rov if Sux 6 '^ 

That Abraham bought for 
a sum of money of the sons 
of Emmor, the father of 
Sychem. 



Gen. xlvi. 27. 

spin IVl 1 ? , s^D-^a 
: D*y3# npnv» nN2n 

All the souls of the house 
of Jacob, which came into 
Egypt, were threescore and 
ten. 

See Joshua xxiv. 32. 



(101.) Ex. ii. 13, 14. 

'E^e\0iiu 8e rfj 7]ixepa ry 
Sevrepa opa Siio &vdpas 'ESpai- 
ovs S(on-A7)KTi^b/tieVous Kal \e~ 
y€i rep aSiKovvri Aict rl crb 
Tvirreis ruv Tr\r)<jiov ; 6 Se elire 
Tls ere KareCT^ffev apxovra Kal 
SiKa(TT7]V e(p' rifJiSiv ; fxrj aveXelv 
/Lee ffb 6e\eis, t>v Tpdirov aveTAes 
%0es rbv Alyvnriov ; 



And having gone out the 
second day he sees two He- 
brew men fighting, and he 
says to the injurer, Where- 
fore smitest thou thy neigh- 
bour ? And he said, Who 
made thee a ruler and a 
judge over us ? Wilt thou 
slay me as thou yesterday 
slewest the Egyptian ? 



Acts vii. 26, &c. 
[Tj? re eiriovar) rj/xepa &<p6y] 
avTois /xaxofAevois, Kal avvr\X- 
Xacrffev avrovs els elpi\vt]v el- 
■wtiiv •] "Avfipes, a,SeX(poi eWe ■ 
%va ri dSireeire aXX-fjXovs ; [ 'O 
5s o.8lk&>v rbv irXTjoriov cbra- 
craro avrbv eliru>v~] T(s ae Ka- 
recTrr,(Tev &pxovra Kal SiKa- 
aT^v ecp' Tj/xoiu ; /lij aveXelv fxe 
ah OeXeis uv rp6nrov avelXes 
ex^es rbv Aiyvirnov ; 



[And the next day he 
shewed himself unto them as 
they strove, and would have 
set them at one again, saying,] 
Sirs, ye are brethren, why do 
ye wrong one to another ? 
[But he that did his neigh- 
bour wrong, thrust him away, 
saying,] Who made thee a 
ruler and a judge over us? 
Wilt thou kill me, as thou 
didst the Egyptian yester- 
day? 



Ex. ii. 13, 14. 

ham *;tfa 0V3 *#i 

: nv»n 

And when he went out 
the second day, behold two 
men of the Hebrews strove 
together : and he said to him 
that did the wrong, Where- 
fore smitest thou thy fellow ? 
And he said, Who made thee 
a prince and a judge over 
us ? intendest thou to kill 
me, as thoukilledst the Egyp- 
tian? 



(102.) Ex. iii. 6. Acts vii. 32. Ex. iii. 6. 

'Eydi el/mi 6 debs rov irarpSs [Eyevero (poiv)] Kvpiov •] 'EyoD Tl^X *0?fc? ^hH 10N**1 



100 In this quotation it has been thought by many that , A€paa/x is an interpolation which 
has crept into the text. But that is a mere conjecture. The name must stand as it is. There 
is a mistake here. Jacob purchased a field from the sons of Emmor (Gen. xxxiii. 19.). 
But Abraham bought the cave of Macpelah from Ephron. Stephen quoted from memory 
or followed tradition. There are two similar mistakes just before. First, that besides 
Jacob and Joseph, the other sons of Jacob were buried in Palestine. Secondly, that 
Jacob was buried in Sichcm, instead of in the cave of Macpelah in Hebron (Gen. xlix. 
30.). Stephen was not infallibly inspired. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



139 



o~ov, Ozbs 'ASpaap. Kal 
'icraaic Kal debs 'I<zku>§' 



o 6ebs tS>v Trarepcov (Tov, 6 
6ebs 'ASpaap. Kal 'Icraa/c kcu 



PpV! 






I am the God of thy father, 
the God of Abraham, and 
the God of Isaac, and the 
God of Jacob. 



[The voice of the Lord Moreover he said, I am the 

came,] I am the God of thy God of thy father, the God 

fathers, the God of Abra- of Abraham, the God of 

ham, and the God of Isaac, Isaac, and the God of Jacob, 
and the God of Jacob. 



(103.) Ex. iii. 5, 7, 8, 10. 

'O 5e ehe, — Avacu rb vir6- 
dri/xa 4k tuv ttoSwv o~ov ' 6 yap 
tottos 4v <f> crv '4arr]Kas yrj a- 
yia icrri. — 'IS&jv elSov tt/v k&- 
Kwaiv tov \aov fxov tov 4v Al- 
yviTTw, Kal TTjs KpavyrjS avrwv 
a.K7jKoa, — Kal Kari§7)v 4£e\4- 
o-Bai avTovs ' — Kal vvv Sevpo, 
airocrTe'iAoi o~e Trpbs iapaui 
f3aai\4a Alyinrrov. 



And he said, Draw not 
hither, loose thy sandals from 
off thy feet, for the place 
whereon thou standest is holy 
ground. I have surely seen 
the affliction of my people 
that is in Egypt, and I have 
heard their cry. And I have 
come down to deliver them. 
And now come, I will send 
thee to Pharao, king of 
Egypt. 



Acts vii. 33, 34. 
[ElTrei/ 8e avrai 6 Kvptos'"] 
Avaov rb tnr6SriiJ.a tSjv iro8a>v 
o~ov 6 yap tottos icp' (p '4o~tt)- 
Kas 777 ayia iffTiv. IBibv tTSov 
TT)V KaKUlffiV tov Xaov fiov rov 
iv Alyvmo), Kal tov ffTevay- 
fxov avToii iJKOuaa, Kal KariS^v 
i£e\eo~dai avrovs- Kal vvv 5fC- 
po d7rocrTeiA&; <re eis AXyvirrov. 



[Then said the Lord- to 
him,] Put off thy shoes from 
thy feet : for the place where 
thou standest is holy ground. 
I have seen, I have seen the 
affliction of my people which 
is in Egypt, and I have 
heard their groaning, and 
am come down to deliver 
them. And now come, I 
will send thee into Egypt. 



Ex. iii. 5, 7, 8, 10. 

: K-in trp-np-jx vhv noiy 
: nin.s-Vg i\ft!?f$) nib 

And he said, Put off thy 
shoes from off thy feet, for 
the place whereon thou stand- 
est is holy ground. I have 
surely seen the affliction of 
my people which are in 
Egypt, and have heard their 
cry. And I am come down 
to deliver them. Come now 
therefore, I will send thee 
unto Pharaoh. 



(104.) Ex. ii. 14. 

Tis ffe KaTiffrrjffiv &px,ovra 
Kal SiKao-T^v i<p' iip.<Zv ; 

"Who made thee a ruler 
and a judge over us ? 

(105.) Deut. xviii. 15. 

IIpo<p->iT7)v 4k toiv a$e\cp£iv 
o~ov ws iixh avao~TT]o~ei o~oi kv- 
pios 6 deos (TOV. 



Acts vii. 35. Ex. ii. 14. 

lis ere KaTeo-TTio-ev &p%ovra \ t3jJB>) *1EJ> CJ>W "HD^ ''P 



Kal StKaaT'fjv ■ 

Who made thee 
and a judge ? 



ruler Who made thee a prince 
and a judge over us ? 



Acts vii. 37. Deut. xviii. 15. 

Tlpo(pr)T7)v vp.1v a.vacrTT]<Tei 6 

0tbs Ik twv ad<=\<p£>v vp.£>v &s W? T0S£ IS'JgP K'?J 

Tlie Lord thy God shall A Prophet shall the Lord The Lord thy God will 

raise up to thee a prophet of your God raise up unto yon raise up unto thee a Prophet 

thy brethren, bike me. of your brethren, like unto from the midst of thee, of 

me. thy brethren, like unto me. 



(106.) Ex. xxxii. I. 

Tloiriaov T]p.?v deovs, ot irpo- 
iropevaovTai fip.wv ■ 6 yap Maw- 
crfjs ovtos 6 &vdpunros bs i^r)- 
70751/ r]jxas e'/c 777s AlyvTTTOv, 
oi/K oWa/xsv ri yiyovev avT$, 



Acts vii. 40. Ex. xxxii. I. 

Uolt)(Tov rifuv Beovs ot irpo- )^\ "It^'X D^nSx ■'IJ^TlB'JJ 
iropsvo-ovrai tjfM&v • 6 yap Mwv- 
afjs ovtos, bs 4£riyayev T]p.as 
4k 777s AlyviTTov, ovk o(5a/xev 
Tiiyivero av T $. DHVP V$gQ ^Vr\ Ittfe 



^xn nvn nr*3 w$h 



Make us gods who shall Make us gods to go be- Make us gods, which shall 



140 



Biblical Criticism. 



go before us, for this 
the man who brought us forth 
out of the land of Egypt, we 
do not know what is become 
of him. 



fore us : for as for this Moses, go before us : for as for this 
which brought us out of the Moses, the man that brought 
land of Egypt, we wot not us up out of the land of 
what is become of him. Egypt, we wot not what is 

become of him. 



(107.) Amos v. 25, &c. 

Mr; fffpdyia Kal Qvoias npo* 
ffr]v4yKare fioi, oIkos 'lcrpariA, 
TtaaapaKOVTa %tt\ eV rfj epi)p.cp ; 
Kal aveAa§ere t^v (TKrjv^v rov 
MoAbx Kal rb aarpov rov 
6tov vp.S>v 'Pcucpav, robs tvttovs 
o.vtwv ovs eTT0L7](raTe eavrois ' 
Kal fieroiKiu ii/xas iweKeiva 
Aa/xaaKov ' 



Have ye offered to me vic- 
tims and sacrifices, O house 
of Israel, forty years in the 
wilderness ? Yea, ye took 
up the tabernacle of Moloch, 
and the star of your god 
Raiphan, the images of them 
which ye made for yourselves. 
And I will carry you away 
beyond Damascus. 



(108.) Is. lxvi. 1, 2. 

Ovtois Aeyei Kvpios b ov- 
pav6s p.ov 6p6vos, Kal t) yrj v- 

TTOTtSSlOV T&V TToduU p.0V * TTOlOV 

oIkov olKodop.7}(T€re p,oi ; Kal 
■koIos t6ttos ttjs Karairavcncos 
fxou; iravra yap ravra enoi- 
Tjaey t) x iL P M 00 ' 



Thus says the Lord, Heaven 
is my throne, and the earth 
is my footstool: what kind 
of a house will ye build me? 
And of what kind is to be 
the place of my rest? Eor all 
these things my hand has 
made. 



Acts vii. 42, 43. 

[Kadws yeypairrai £v j3i6Acj) 
roiv TrpocpTjraiv •] Mr/ cr<pdyia 
Kal Ovaias irpocnjveyKaTe p.oi 
Ittj recrffapaKovra iv rfj tpr)- 
p.q>, oIkos 'lapa-fjA, Kal aveAd- 
Sere tt)v aKt]vrjv rov MoAbx 
Kal rb cicrTpov rov deov 'Pe<pav, 
robs tvttovs ovs iirovhaars 
irpocrKvvuv avrols ; Kal p.erot- 
Kioo vp.as eVe'/ceim BaSvAwvos. 



[As it is written in the 
book of the prophets,] ye 
house of Israel, have ye of- 
fered to me slain beasts and 
sacrifices by the space of 
forty years in the wilderness ? 
Yea, ye took up the taber- 
nacle of Moloch, and the 
star of your God Rephan, 
figures which ye made to 
worship them : and I will 
carry you away beyond Ba- 
bylon. 

Acts vii. 49, 50. 

['O irpo(pr]Tvs Aeyer"] 'O ov- 
pav6s pot dpdvos, i) 5e yrj vtto- 

TToSlOV TtoV TToduV /XOV * TTOlOV 

oIkov olKo8op.iio-ere p.oi ; Aeyei 
Kvpios, r) ris tottos ttjs Kara- 
iravcretios p-ov; ov%l i) xeip p:ov 
irrolriaev iravra ravra ; 



[Saith the prophet,] Hea- 
ven is my throne, and earth 
is my footstool : what house 
will ye build me, saith the 
Lord, or what is the place of 
my rest ? Hath not my hand 
made all these things ? 



Amos v. 25, &c. 

n-isp nx DCiK^fi i Wiy. 

Dp/^V I-V3 m) B5^?E 
DD^y. 1^«. BD/n'^. 2D13 

Have ye offered unto me 
sacrifices and offerings in the 
wilderness forty years, O 
house of Israel? But ye have 
borne the tabernacle of your 
Moloch and Chiun your 
images, the star of your god, 
which ye made to yourselves. 
Therefore will I cause you 
to go into captivity beyond 
Damascus. 



Is. lxvi. 1, 2. 

-•w ^p D'nq Y^$™ *s?p3 

-^?-rw : '-nn-ij?? Dipp ni 
: nnb>y n* ni?K 

Thus saith the Lord, The 
heaven is my throne, and 
the earth is my footstool; 
where is the house that ye 
build unto me ? and where is 
the place of my rest ? Eor 
all those things hath mine 
hand made. 



(109.) Is. liii. 7, 8. Acts viii. 32, 33. Is. liii. 7, 8. 

'Cls irp6§arov <=7rt o-'pay^v ['H 5e Trepioxh rr\s ypacp^s ^|-|-)3!] p^lp n3t2? H^S 

rJxQv> Kal ais ap.vbs kvavrlov t)v dceytVaxr/cei' r\v avrr\ •] c Hs " T : , . ~ '"' '' . 

rov KeipovTos &<pwvos, ovrws ■jrp6§arov iirl ffcpayTjv i^X^Vi nPl?^ N?1 H?D?XJ n\t?J \3?7 



107 This is cited from the LXX. The Hebrew and LXX. have both Damascus, for which 
Babylon stands here. But the discrepancy is merely apparent. Israel was carried not 
only beyond Damascus, but Babylon also. 

■o 9 This is quoted from the LXX. The pronouns abrov and avrov (twice) are added. It 
agrees exactly with the Alexandrine codex. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



141 



ovk avoiyei rb ar6jj.a. iv rfj 
raireivdicrei r) Kpicns avrov yp- 
G-q • rr]v yeveav avrov ris 5nj- 
yi)crerai ; Sri atperai airb rrjs 
yrjs 7] Qt>rj avrov. 



He was led as a sheep to 
the slaughter, and as a lamb 
before the shearer is dumb, 
so he opens not his mouth. 
In his humiliation his judg- 
ment was taken away ; who 
shall declare his generation ? 
for his life is taken away 
from the earth. 



Ka) ois a.iu.vbs evavriov rov Kei- 
povros avrbv &(paivos, ovrccs 
ovk avoiyei rb crrofia avrov. iv 
ry raireivuicrei 7) Kplais avrov 
fip6r) • ri}v yeveav avrov ris 
o~a)yi)crerai ; Sri aXperai curb 
rr)s yrjs i) far] avrov. 

[The place of the Scrip- 
tures which he read was 
this,] He was led as a sheep 
to the slaughter ; and like a 
lamb dumb before his shear- 
er, so opened he not his 
mouth. In his humiliation 
his judgment was taken 
away: and who shall de- 
clare his generation ? for 
his life is taken from the 
earth. 



-in.? *? nrf\v\ "p iHrn^i 



He is brought as a lamb to 
the slaughter, and as a sheep 
before her shearers is dumb, 
so he openeth not his mouth. 
He was taken from prison 
and from judgment : and 
who shall declare his genera- 
tion ? for he was cut off out 
of the land of the living. 



(110.) 1 Kings xiii. 14; Ps. 
lxxxviii. 21. 
Ztjtt)(T€i Kvpios eavrcf &vdpta- 
•kov Kara ryv KapSiav avrov' — 
TLvpov Aavlo rbv Sov\6v ,uox>, 
iv i\eei ayioj expicra avrov. 

The Lord shall seek for 
himself a man after his own 
heart. I have found David 
my servant ; I have anointed 
him by my holy mercy. 



Acts xiii. 22. 

\jElirev ixaprvp-no-as-"] "Evpov 
Aave\o rbv rov 'leaaal, &v8pa 
Kara rrjv KapSiav /xov, os iroir)- 
o~ei rrdvra ra 6e\i)fxard (xov. 

[He gave testimony and 
said,] I have found David 
the son of Jesse, a man after 
mine own heart, which shall 
fulfil all my will. 



1 Sam. xiii. 14 ; Ps. lxxxix. 
21. 

l^a »"n3H in "-nxyp- 

The Lord hath sought him 

a man after his own heart 

I have found David my ser- 
vant ; with my holy oil have 
I anointed him. 



(111.) Ps. ii. 7. 

Tl6s p.ov el av, eyw o-qfiepov 
yeyevvr)Ka ere. 



Thou art my son, to-day 
have I begotten thee. 



Acts xiii. 33. 
[_'Cls Kal iv rw ipa\pqi ye- 
ypairrai r§ irpwro) ■] tlos /xov 
el av, eyu> o-f)/iepov yeyevvrjKa 



Ps. ii. 7. 

' Tin'?'! 



[As it is also written in Thou art my Son, this day 
the first Psalm,] Thou art have I begotten thee, 
my Son, this day have I be- 
gotten thee. 



(112.) Is. Iv. 3. Acts xiii. 34. Is. l v . 3. 

Kal Siae-qo-onai vpSv Sia6i)- [ 0£ ™ s eJTpijKO''] ori Sacra Q^y J-\S")2 U^b nni?X1 

K7)v aluviov, ra fcria AavlS ra. vp.1v ra '6o-ia AavelS ra irtcrd. T ' : v T T : : '•' : 

mo-rd. : d*3»k$3 in H90 

And I will make with you [He said on this wise,] I And I will make an ever- 

an everlasting covenant, the w^ill give you the sure mer- lasting covenant with you, 

sure mercies of David. cies of David. even the sure mercies of 

David. 



(113.) Ps. xv. 10. 

OvSe Siiaeis rbv '6cri6v crov 
I8e7v oiacpBopdv. 

Neither wilt thou suffer 
thine holy one to see cor- 
ruption. 



Acts xiii. 35. Ps. xvi. 10. 

[Aeyei-] Ob ocicreis rbv %- tVtiXJ} %*VDn fflm6 

o~i6v crov Ideiv SiacpOopdv. ' ; ' : 

[He saith,] Thou shalt not Neither wilt thou suffer 

suffer thy Holy One to see thine Holy One to see cor- 

corruption. ruption. 



142 



Biblical Criticism. 



(114.) Hab. i. 5. 

"iSere ol KaTa<ppovr]Tal Kal 
eiri§Ae\f/aTe, Kal Bav/xdaaTe 
Oav/xdffia Kal dcpavia8rjTe ' Si6- 
ri epyov eyui epyd£op.ai ev reus 

TjfxepaiS VfX&V b OV fjL^I TTKTTicV- 

o-rjTe edv tis eKSivy^Tai. 

Behold, ye despisers, and 
look, and. wonder marvel- 
lously, and vanish ; for I work 
a work in your days, which 
ye will in no wise believe, 
though a man declare it to 
you. 



Acts xiii. 41. 

[Th elprifievov ev toIs irpo- 
(p-tircus,"] "iSeTe, ol Karatypovri- 
Tal, Kal 6avp.dffare Kal acpa- 
viff9r]Te, Sti epyov ipyd&fuu 
ey&i ev rats 7]y.epaLS v/xwv, ep- 
yov b ou fj.7) Trio-Tevo~T}Te edv tis 
iic5i7]yljTai vp.lv. 

[Which is spoken of in 
the prophets,] Behold, ye 
despisers, and wonder, and 
perish: for I work a work 
in your days, a work which 
ye shall in no wise believe, 
though a man declare it 
unto you. 



Hab. 






Behold ye among the hea- 
then, and regard, and wonder 
marvellously : for I will work 
a work in your days, which 
ye will not believe, though it 
be told you. 



(115.) Is. xlix. 6. 

Ae'5o!/ca ae els h~iaQr]K7)v ye- 
vovs, els (pus IQvccv, tou elval 
ere els awrqplav eais ecrxaTOV 
TTJs yrjs. 

I have given thee for the 
covenant of a race, for a 
light of the Gentiles ; . that 
thou shouldest be for salva- 
tion to the end of the earth. 



Acts xiii. 47. 

['ErTeTaA/rai rjp.1v 6 Kvpios,~\ 
TedeiKa ae els (pris edvwv, tov 
elvai ere els ffdnripiav eois eaxd- 
tov tt\s yris. 

[The Lord commanded 
us,] I have set thee to be a 
light of the Gentiles, that 
thou shouldest be for salva- 
tion unto the ends of the 
earth. 



Is. xlix. 6. 

I will also give thee for a 
light to the Gentiles, that 
thou mayest be my salvation 
unto the end of the earth. 



(116.) Amos ix. 11, 12. 
'Ey rfj r/fiepa eKelvr) avaffTr)- 

ffOO TTjV 0-K7\v))V AclUiS TTjV Tte- 

iTTivKvlav, Kal dvoiicohofxrjO'ii} rd 
TreirToiKOTa avTrjS, Kal Ta Kare- 
o-Kafxp.eva avTr\s dvaaT^ain, Kal 
avoiKoSop-wcrai alnrjV Kadcbs al 
Tjfiepai tou alwvos, '6tt<iis eK^rj- 
TJ)o-ao-iv ol KaTa\onroi tuv dv- 
Opdirajv, Kal TtdvTa ra eQvr) e<p' 
ous eiriKeK\r]Tai rb ovop.d /xov 
eir' avTovs, Aeyei Kvpws, 6 iroi- 
Siv irdvTa Tavra. 

In that day I will raise up 
the tabernacle of David that 
is fallen, and will rebuild the 
ruins of it, and will set up 
the parts thereof that have 
been broken down, and will 
build it up as in the ancient 
days ; that the remnant of 



Acts xv. 16, 17. 
[Ka0a>s yeypanTai •] Mera 
TavTa avaaTptyco Kal avoiKO- 

SojJ.r)cTQl TT\V 0-K7)VT)V AavelS TT/J/ 

ireiTTdiKvlav Kal tos KaTeaKa/j.- 
p.eva avTrjs dvoiKoSop.r]o'(a Kal 
dvopdwaai a\)Tir\v, Hirois 1xv eK- 
Qr\Tr\auio~iv ol Kard\onroi t£>v 
avdpwiroov tov Kvpiov, Kal irdvTa 
Ta edvr], e<p' ovs emiceKAriTai 
t2> ovo/xd fjiov eir avTOvs, Aeyei 
Kvpios iroiSiv TavTa. 

[As it is written,] After 
this I will return, and will 
build again the tabernacle 
of David which is fallen 
down ; and I will build again 
the ruins thereof, and I will 
set it up : That the residue 
of men might seek after the 



Amos ix. 11, 12. 

D^'st vribiqi }a^"is - h8 
: nw ri&y nin^nxj dh^u 

In that day will I raise up 
the tabernacle of David that 
is fallen, and close up the 
breaches thereof ; and I will 
raise up his ruins, and I will 
build it as in the clays of old : 
that they may possess the 
remnant of Edom, and of all 



114 This is a free translation from the LXX. As it is taken from Habakkuk alone, Iv toIs 
irpotpT)Tais must mean in the Book of the Prophets. There is one important deviation from 
the Hebrew: DJ133j among the heathen, is rendered by ol KaTa§povi\Tai,ye despisers. It is, 
therefore, probable that the translators read DH312 in their copy. We do not think, how- 
ever, that it is the genuine reading. 

116 Taken from the LXX. with some variations. In one clause, however, the Hebrew is 
materially different. Instead of D'"IS JTH^ T\^ V&y\, may possess the remnant of Edom, 
the LXX. have eKCv^o-ucnv ol KaTaXonvoi tuv avdpdiruv, k.t.X. They read, perhaps, •ItShT 
)\ T\$ D}X 1V18C& The New Testament quotation sanctions the Septuagint reading. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the Neio. 



143 



men, and all the Gentiles 
upon whom my name is 
called, may earnestly seek 
me, says the Lord, who does 
all these things. 



Lord, and all the Gentiles, the heathen, which are called 

upon whom my name is by my name, saith the Lord 

called, saith the Lord, who that doeth this, 
doeth all these things. 



Ex. xxii. 27. 



(117.) Ex. xxii. 28. Acts xxiii. 5. 

"Apxovra tov Aaov cov ov [Teypairrai yap *] "Apxovra 
kukws ipus. tov Aaov ffov ovk epels KaKws. 

Thou shalt not speak ill of [It is written,] Thou shalt Thou shalt not curse the 
the ruler of thy people. not speak evil of the ruler of ruler of thy people, 

thy people. 



(118.) 



Is. vi. 9, 10. 



Tlopev9r]Tt Kal elirov tc# Aay 
tovtw 'Akotj aKovaere Kal ov 
fii} ffvvrJTe, Kal jiAenovTes /8\e- 
\pere Kal ov /xt) i5tjt6. eVa- 
XvvOr] yap r) KapSia tov Aaov 
tovtov, Kal to7s wolv avTWV 
(Zapsws f\Kovo-av, Kal tovs o<f>- 
9aAfXovs eKd/x/xvffav, /xt) Trore 
Wwcri to7s 6<p9aAfj.o7s, Kal rols 
wtI a.Kovawo'i, Kal ttj KapSia 
avvwo-i Kal imo-rptywcri, Kal 
Idaofiai avTobs. 



Go, and say to this people, 
Ye shall hear indeed, but ye 
shall not understand ; and 
ye shall see indeed, but ye 
shall not perceive. For the 
heart of this people has be- 
come gross ; and their ears 
are dull of hearing, and their 
eyes have they closed ; lest 
they should see with their 
eyes, and understand with 
their heart, and be converted, 
and I should heal them. 



Acts xxviii. 26, 27. 

[To Trvev/xa to ayiov iAa- 
ATjcre Sia 'Hcraiov tov irpocpi]- 
tov Aiyov~\ TIop6v9r]Tt vpbs 
tov Aabv tovtov Kal elwdv 
'Akotj aKovcreTe Kal ov /xtj aw- 
7JT€, Kal /3\4irovTes /SAc'i^ers 
Kal ov jU?; iSrjre • eTraxvvBr] 
yap t) KapSia tov Aaov tovtov, 
Kal to7s walv fiapews ^Kovaav 
Kal tovs 6<p9aA/xovs avTwv e- 
Ka/xfxvcrav, p.r) -hots XSwcriv to7s 
b(p9aAjxols Kal to7s walv o.kov- 
awaiv Kal ttj KapSia avvwaiv 
Kal iirto-Tptyu)o-ii> Kal iaaw/xai 
avTovs. 

[Spake the Holy Ghost by 
Esaias the prophet, saying,] 
Go unto this people, and say, 
Hearing ye shall hear, and 
shall not understand ; and 
seeing ye shall see, and not 
perceive. For the heart of 
this people is waxed gross, 
and their ears are dull of 
hearing, and their eyes have 
they closed, lest they should 
see with their eyes, and hear 
with their ears, and under- 
stand with their heart, and 
should be converted, and I 
should heal them. 



Is. vi. 9, 10. 

h : tn Dvb 91»«1 ijz 
t ft K$ni a^j 



Go and tell this people, 
Hear ye indeed, but under- 
stand not; and see ye indeed, 
but perceive not. Make the 
heart of this people fat, and 
make their ears heavy, and 
shut their eyes ; lest they see 
with their eyes, and hear 
with their ears, and under- 
stand with their heart, and 
convert, and be healed. 



(119.) Hab. ii. 4. 

'O 8e SiKaios e'/c Trio-Tews fxov 
01<rerai. 

But the just shall live by 
my faith. 



Rom. i. 17. 

[KaQoiy yeypairTat] 'O 3e 
S'iKatos £k Trio-Tews £r)o-erai. 

[As it is written,] The 
just shall live by faith. 



Hab. ii. 4. 

But the just shall live by 
his faith. 



120) Is. Hi. 5. 

At' v/xas Sia. ttovtos to ovo/xd 
fiov /3AaacpT]fj.eiTai iv to7s ed- 
veffi. 



Rom. ii. 24. 
Tb yap ovo/xa. tov 6eov Si' 
v/xas f$Aao-<pr)/xe7Tai iv to'is td- 
veffW, [reafluis yeypaTTTai."] 



w 



Is. lii. 5. 

n»0-^3 Torn. 



119 The codex Ephremi has /xov after irurrews hke the LXX. The Philoxenian Syriac, 
Eusebius, and Jerome mention the same reading. But it is a correction of the right text. 
The citation agrees more nearly with the Hebrew than the LXX 

120 This is from the LXX., with the additions oY v/xas and iv Tails %Qve<ri. Tov 6eov is also 
substituted for /xov. 



144 



Biblical Criticism. 



On account of you my For the name of God is And my name continually 
name is continually bias- blasphemed among the Gen- every day is blasphemed, 
phemed among the Gentiles, tiles through you [as it is 
written.] 



(121.) Ps.l. 6. 

"OtroiS av 0~iko.iw6tjs iv rols 
XSyois aov, ko.1 viKrjffris iv r<£ 
Kplvecrdai <re. 

That thou mightest be jus- 
tified in thy sayings, and 
mightest overcome when thou 
art judged. 



Rom. iii. 4. Ps. li. 6. 

[Kaehs ydypawrcu-] "Onus j-|5?n T^? pWft \%1&> 
Uv diKaiwOfjs iv tols Xoyois aov 

Kal viKr)o~r)s iv t£ KpiveoSai I ^£5^2 

ere. 

[As it is written,] That That thou mightest be 
thou mightest be justified in justified when thou speak- 
thy sayings, and mightest est, and be clear when thou 
overcome when thou art judgest. 
judged. 



(122.) Ps. xiii. 1, &c. 

OvK eCTTi -koiSov XpTlffTOTrjTa., 

ovk ecrriv ecos ev6s. Kvpios eK 
tov ovpavov SieKvxpev iirl tovs 
vlovs tuiv avdpuirciiv, tov I5e7v 
el eo~Ti avvi&v r) eKQnruv tov 
6e6v. iravTes i£eK\ivuv, ajxa 
Tjxpeacdricrav, ovk eon ttoiwv 
XPT}o-t6t71to., ovk ecrriv eais 
ev6s. 



There is none that does 
goodness, there is not even 
so much as one. The Lord 
looked down from heaven 
upon the sons of men, to see 
if there were any that under- 
stood, or sought after God. 
They are all gone out of the 
way, they are together be- 
come good for nothing, there 
is none that does good, no 
not one. 



Rom. iii. 10,11,12. 

[KaQws yeypa-KTai-"\ '6ti ovk 
ecrriv SiKaios oboe els, ovk ecr- 
riv crvviuv, ovk ecrriv [6] 6K- 
fyjoiv tov deov iravTes e£e'/cAi- 
vav, afxa 7)xpeia>077<rca/ • ovk 
ecrriv ttoiwv xpyo-TdrriTa, ovk 
ecrriv etas ev6s. 



[As it is written,] There 
is none righteous, no not 
one : There is none that un- 
derstandeth, there is none 
that seeketh after God. They 
are all gone out of the way, 
they are together become 
unprofitable : there is none 
that doeth good, no, not one. 



Ps. xiv. 1, &c. 

njn* t nto-n"#y \% 
Kh>i b^ypn £?n : r\\mtfi m 
-di ps aitrnbty p« vfosj 

They are corrupt, they 
have done abominable works, 
there is none that doeth good. 
The Lord looked down from 
heaven upon the children of 
men, to see if there were any 
that did understand, awe? seek 
God. They are all gone 
aside, they are all together 
become filthy: there is none 
that doeth good, no, not one. 



(123.) 



Ps. v. 10. 



Toupos aveu>yjx4vos 6 \dpvy£ 
avraiv, reus yXwcrcrais avrwv 
i'SoXiovcro.v. 

Their throat is an open 
sepulchre; with their tongues 
they have used deceit. 



Rom. iii. 13. Ps. v. 10. 

Tdcpos bvecpyfxevos b XdpvyJ Ojfo^j Dj'lj fTiriB"Qi?. 
avrSiv, reus y\wcraats avrwv ' '. 

edoXiovcrav. i J'lpvCU 

Their throat is an open Their throat is an open 

sepulchre; with their tongues sepulchre; they flatter with 

they have used deceit. their tongue. 



121 This is from the LXX. Por the Hebrew n|tfy thou mayest be clear, the Septuagint 
translator has viKi]crr,s, mayest overcome, after the Syriac usus loquendi. The sense of both 
is the same. 

122 Taken from the Septuagint, but not exactly. The first part is abridged. The latter 
is verbatim. rixpeiaiOricrav, are become unprofitable, is the representative of -inVxJ, are 
corrupt which is stronger and more forcible. 

123 [Rom. iii. 13—17. is interpolated in Ps. xiii. between the third and fourth verses of 
various modern printed editions of the Septuagint as taken from the Vatican; but they 
are merely in the margin of the Cod. Vat. The Alexandrine MS. does not contain them. 
They occur in the Vulgate version of Ps. xiii.] The present quotation is from the Sep- 
tuagint, Ps. v. 10. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the Neio, 145 

(124.) Ps. cxxxix. 4. Eom. iii. 13. Ps. cxl. 3. 

'lbs amn'Swi/ virb t« x^V ios o-o-iridwy vnb t« XefAij ]""inF| 3-1^51? F~ l)Dn 

avTwv. auruv. ' 

The poison of asps is un- The poison of asps is un- Adder's poison is under 
der their lips. der their lips. their lips. 

(125.) Ps. ix. 28. (x. 7.) Pom. iii. 14. Ps. x. 7. 

Ou apas rb (Tro/xa avrov v Clv rb (rro/xa [avrobv'] apas * fl'WlO-1 &O0 •In' 1 ? rPX 

76^61 koi wucpias, Kal S6\ov. Kal iriKpias ye/j.ei. ' * TT 

Whose mouth is full of Whose mouth is full of His mouth is full of curs- 
cursing, and bitterness, and cursing and bitterness. ing and deceit, 
fraud. 

(126.) Is. lix. 7, 8. Rom. iii. 15, &c. Is. lix. 7, 8. 

Ot 5e irddes avrwv inl iro- '0|e?r oi iroSes avrwv iKx^ai ."nnftM ■IVI' 1 JD? Dn^JI 

vripiav rpexovcri, rax^vol 4k- afua, avvrpifx/xa Kal ra\anrw- ' . ' . . ' T " T '"'." : .#~ 

X*ai aTfia, vvvrpimxa Kal to- pia 4v rats 65o?s abraiv, Kal "15^1 *lt^ *j?3 D"^ 'ijQ^V 

Aaurupia 4v rats 6So7s avraiv — 68bv elp-f\V7]s ouk iyvwaav. . t -.[ . .< 

: wt 

And their feet run to wick- Their feet are swift to shed Their feet run to evil, and 

edness, swift to shed blood, blood. they make haste to shed in- 

destruction and misery are Destruction and misery nocent blood ; wasting and 

in their ways ; the way of are in their ways : And the destruction are in their paths, 

peace they know not. way of peace have they not The way of peace they know 

known. uot. 

(127.) Ps. xxxv. 1. Pom. iii. 18. Ps. xxxvi. 1. 

Ovk sort <p6§os deov aire- Ovk e<rrti> <p6Sos 6eoZ aire- ', VTV ~\))b D'i^M inS"}^ 

vavri rS>v b<ptiak\j.S>v avrov. vavri rSiv b<pda\)jLQov avrSiv. 

There is no fear of God There is no fear of God There is no fear of God 

before his eyes. before their eyes. before his eyes. 

(128.) Gen. xv. 6. Rom. iv. 3. Gen xv. 6. 

Kal hriarevo-ev "Aipafi t<5 [Ti yap % ypa<py \4y€i ;] y? rQC'ITl HIPPS jPSHI 
6e£, Kal 4\oyiadT) awry els St- 'Eniarevcrev Se ^ASpaa/j. tgS 9eq>, 

Kaio<rvvt]v. Kal iAoyicrdr) avr<5 els SiKato- 5 l "'l?'7V 

<yvvr\v. 
And Abraham believed [For what saith the Scrip- And he believed in the 
God, and it was counted to ture ?] Abraham believed Lord, and he counted it to 
him for righteousness. God, and it was counted him for righteousness, 

unto him for righteousness. 

(129.) Ps. xxxi. 1, 2. Rom. iv. 6, 7, 8. Ps. xxxii. 1, 2. 

MaKapioi Siv a(pe6rj(Tav at [KaOdnep Kal AavelS \eyer~] V)Q3 y^ ; 3-''.lb'J ^'i? 

avofj.iai, Kal 5>v iTreKa\v<pdrj<Tai> HiaKapioi wv acped-qtrav at avo- '■ % : " : 

oi aixapriai- jj.aKa.pws avfy § fxlat Kal wv eTreKa\v<p6riffav at N? D"JX ''"ID'X J !"lN!t3n 

ov /U7J Xoylo-qrat Kvpios a/Map- ajxapriai' /xaKapios ai'rip £ ov .', . 

T [ av , M^? KoyiffTjTou Kvpios a/xaprlav. ' J117 1? ^)^\ ^^H! 

Blessed are they whose [Even as David also saith,] Blessed is he whose trans 

transgressions are forgiven, Blessed are they whose in- gression is forgiven, whose 

and whose sins are covered, iquities are forgiven, and sin is covered. Blessed is 

Blessed is the man to whom whose sins are covered, the man unto whom the Lord 

the Lord will not impute sin. Blessed is the man to whom imputeth not iniquity. 

the Lord doth not impute 

sin. 

125 This is from the LXX. The translators confounded HiD"]??, deceit, with riTft?, 
bitterness, iziKpia. 

126 This is from the LXX., with omissions and variations. 
VOL. II. L 



146 



Biblical Criticism. 



(130.) Gen. xvii. 5. 

"On irarepa. iroAAwv iQvuv 
TedeiKa ae. 

For I have made, thee a 
father of many nations. 



Eom. iv. 17. 
[ KaO&is yeypairrai ' ] Sti 
irarepa. ttoAAcov edvwv redeiKa 



Gen. xvii. 5. 



[As it is written,] I have For a father of many na- 
made thee a father of many tions have I made thee, 
nations. 



(131.) Gen. xv. 5. 

Ovtoos earai rb airep/j.a <rov. 

Thus shall thy seed be. 



Eom. iv. 18. 

[Kara rb elprjp.evov •] Ovtws 
earai. rb airepua aov. 

[According to that which 
was spoken,] So shall thy 
seed be. 



Gen. xv. 5. 

J ^v."it n.w fib 

So shall thy seed be. 



(132.) Ex. xx. 17. 

Ovk eiri&vp.T)crtis tV yvvaiKa 



Eom. vii. 7. Ex. xx. 17 . 

['O ySfios 6A67ev] Ovk j »jy-| n^K YDnfT$6 



tov irAT/aiov aov, k. t. A. imdvp.7]aeLS. 

Thou shalt not covet thy [The law said,] Thou shalt Thou shalt not covet thy 
neighbour's wife, &c. not covet. neighbour's wife. 



(133.) Ps. xliii. 23. 

"On eveKa crov davarovfxeBa 
SA.tji' tt]v rjixepcw, eAoyiadnp-ev 
iis Trp6€ara aipayrjs. 

For thy sake we are killed 
all the day long; we are 
counted as sheep for slaugh- 
ter. 



Eom. viii. 36. 

[Ka&ws yey pairrcu •] '6tl I- 
veKiv aov QavaTovfxida. '6Ar]v 
tr\v Tjfiepav, eAoyiadt]iJ.ev iis 
■KpdSaTa acpayrjs. 

[As it is written,] For thy 
sake we are killed all the 
day long ; we are accounted 
as sheep for the slaughter. 



(134.) Gen. xxi. 12. Eom. ix. 7. 

"Otj iv 'laaaK KAi)9r)aerai ['AAA'-] 'Ev 'lactate kAtjBti- 

aoi airepfxa. aerai aoi airep/j.a. 

For in Isaac shall thy seed [But] In Isaac shall thy 

be called. thy seed be called. 



Ps. xliv. 22. 

: nnnt? ji&i -li^n; 

For thy sake are we killed 
all the day long ; we are 
counted as sheep for the 
slaughter. 

Gen. xxi. 12. 

For in Isaac shall thy seed 
be called. 



(135.) Gen. xviii. 10. 

'Enavaarpecpaiv ^£co Ttpbs 
ah Kara rbv naipbv tovtop els 
wpas, koX e£et vlbv ~2,dppa. T] 
yvvi] aov. 

I will return and come to 
thee, according to this period 
seasonably, and Sarah thy 
wife shall have a son. 



Gen. xviii. 10. 

n»n nya t^k i-ipk nip 
: ^r\f$ rn't^ p-njfft 

I will certainly return unto 
thee according to the time of 
come, and Sarah shall have life; and lo, Sarah thy wife 
son. shall have a son. 



Eom. ix. 9. 

['EirayyeAias yap 6 ASyos 
ovros,"] Kara, rbv Kaipbv rov- 
rov iAevaop.ai Kal earai ttj 
2dppa vl6s. 

[For this is the word of 
promise,] At this time will I 



(136.) Gen. xxv. 23. 

Kal 6 /j.el£a>p SovAevaei t£ 
iAdaaovi. 

And the elder shall serve 
the younger. 



Eom. ix. 12. 



£Epp4dr] avT-fi •] '6ti 6 fiei- 
Qtiv SovAeiaei rep iAdaaovi. 

[It was said unto her,] 
The elder shall serve the the younger, 
younger. 



Gen. xxv. 23. 



And the elder shall serve 



135 This is a free quotation of Gen. xviii. 10. after the LXX. Instead of the fuller form 
Kara, rbv Kaipbv tovtov els 2>pas the Apostle omits the last two words, and that is the repre- 
sentative of n*h ny^, when the time shall have lived again, i.e., in another year. There is no 
reason for supposing that n»n was P!:tn , this, or that Paul used any other version than 
the LXX., as Eandolph conjectures. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



147 



(137.) Mal.i. 2, 3. 

Kal 7iydirr]<ra rbv 'laKw§, 
rbv Se 'Haav ijj.iai\aa. 

Yes, I loved Jacob and 
hated Esau. 



Rom. ix. 13. 
[Kadoos yeypamai •] Tbv 
'laKu.§ ijydTrrjaa, rbv 5k 'Haav 

i/xia-rjaa. 



Mai. i. 2, 3. 



[As it is written,] Jacob Yet 
have I loved, but Esau have hated Esau 
I hated. 



loved Jacob, and I 



(138.) Ex. xxxiii. 19. 

Kal iAerjaai hv av iAeui, Kal 
olKTeipnace ov av o'lKTetpai. 



Eom. ix. 15. 

[T<£ MwaeT yap Keyer] |' n j^ X'XTlt^ 
'EAerjcrco bv av eAew, Kal oi- T 

KTeipricro) bv av olKTeipco. 



Ex. xxxiii. 19. 

♦risen. 



And I will have mercy on [For he saith to Moses,] And I will be gracious to 

whom I will have mercy, I will have mercy on whom whom I will be gracious, and 

and will have pity on whom I will have mercy, and I will will shew mercy on whom I 

I will have pity. have compassion on whom I will shew mercy, 
will have compassion. 



(139.) Ex. ix. 16. 

Kal eveKev tovtov 5i£T?)p7J- 
077? 'Iva iv8e(£a>,uai iv aol T-r/v 
iaxvv fiov, Kal birws SiayyeAfj 
rb ovo/xd llov iv Tracy ttJ yy. 



And for this purpose hast 
thou been preserved, that I 
might display in thee my 
strength, and that my name 
might be published in all the 
earth. 



Rom. ix. 17. 



Ex. ix. 16. 



[Af^yei yap 77 ypacpi] t<5 $a- j 
paw •] otl eis avTo tovto i£fi- 

y el pd are faw ivSei&w *- *^ n n . ny2 Tmton 

crol ti}V ovva/xiv llov Kai ottus ' : : " • - '•:-•.-:•.• 

SiayyeArj jb vvo/xd llov iv *,<Qp ^q jy^ »fp-]-|K 

ttoctt; ttJ yrj. '• " ' '■ ' 

[For the Scriptures saith And in very deed for this 
unto Pharaoh,] Even for this cause have I raised thee up, 
same purpose have I raised for to shew in thee my power; 
thee up, that I might shew and that my name be de- 
my power in thee, and that clared throughout all the 
my name might be declared earth, 
tln-oujj-hout all the earth. 



(140.) Hos. ii. 23. 

Kal ayairnaai T7)f ovk 777a- 

TTT)LL£VT)V, Kal ipS> Tty OV Xaip 

llov Aaos llov el av. 

And I will love her that 
was not loved, and will say 
to that which was not my 
people, Thou art my people. 



Rom. ix. 25. 
['fly /cal iv r<p 'Clanh \4yer~] 
KaAeaco Tbv ov Aa6v llov Aaov 
fiov Kal TT/f ovk T\yaTrt)iiivqv 
7iyaTrr)fxiw]V. 

[As he saith also in Osee,] 
I will call them my people, 
which were not my people; 
and her beloved, which was 
not beloved. 



Hos. ii. 23. 

n»rn yh~m *fl£tni 

: nrix-^y ygr&h *n»»i 

And I will have mercy 
upon her that had not obtain- 
ed mercy, and I will say to 
them which were not my peo- 
ple, Thou art my people. 



(141.) Hos. i. 10. 

Kal earat, iv t<? tSttcii ov 
ipp-f)9ri aliToTs Ov Aaos fiov 
vueTs, KAr)9i)aovrai Kal aCrol 
viol &eov £u>vtos. 



And it shall come to pass 
that in the place where it 
was said to them, Ye are not 
my people, even they shall 
be called the sons of the 
living God. 



Rom. ix. 26. 
Kal tarai iv r<i3 t&ttw ov 
ippedrj [aureus] Oil Aaos fiov 
v/ie7s, e'/ce? KAr\d-riaovTai viol 
i&eoC ££>vtos. 



And it shall come to pass, 
that in the place where it 
was said [unto them] Ye are 
not my people ; there shall 
they be called, The children 
of the living God. 



Hos. i. 10. 

"i»Nrx;s Dip*?? hjjjj 
">£$:». Dtffc* »isar*6 orb 

And it shall come to pass, 
that in the place where it was 
said unto them, Ye are not 
my people, there it shall be 
said unto them, Ye are the 
sons of the living God. 



148 



Biblical Criticism. 



(142.) Is. x. 22, 23. 

Kal lav yevrirat 6 Aabs 'I<r- 
par/A us i] &U/J.OS rrjs &a\d<r- 
(Ttjs, rb KardXeifi/xa avruv au- 
Br)aeTai. \6yov avvreXuv Kal 
avvriy-vuv iv BiKatoavvrj, '6tl 
KSyov avvrerfj.t]fxevov Kvpios 
Troirjffei iv rrj olKOV/xivr) cfAjj. 



And though the people of 
Israel he as the sand of the 
sea, a remnant of them shall 
he saved. He will finish the 
work, and cut it short in 
righteousness ; because the 
Lord will make a short work 
in all the world. 



Rom. ix. 27, 28. 
fHffeuos Se Kpd£ei irrrep rod 
'ItrpaTjA.-] 'Eav y 6 apid/ubs ruv 
vluv 'lffparjA us r) &ufxos ttjs 
fraAdcrcrris, rb vir6\eL/j.jji.a au- 
6r)o-erat. \6yor yap (rvvreAuv 
Kal o-vvri/xvuv 7roii)o~ei Kvpios 
ivl rrjs yrjs. 



[Esaias also crieth con- 
cerning Israel,] Though the 
number of the children of 
Israel be as the sand of the 
sea, a remnant shall be saved : 
Tor he will finish the work, 
and cut it short in righteous- 
ness : because a short work 
will the Lord make upon the 
earth. 



Is. x. 22. 23. 

to n-iC2>j ns^ D»n Vm? 
:n|riv *$W riin jiHjg 

-Ss n^i?.a n'#y nitay 

For though thy people 
Israel be as the sand of the 
sea, yet a remnant of them 
shall return: the consump- 
tion decreed shall overflow 
with righteousness. For the 
Lord God of hosts shall 
make a consumption, even 
determined in the midst of 
all the land. 



(143.) Is. i. 9. 

Kal el fir} Kvpios 2a§ai>0 
iyKareAnrev rjfuv ffTrepfxa, us 
~S,65ofia av iyevi)Br))xev, Kal us 
Tofioppa av ufioiiliBrnxev. 

And if the Lord of Sa- 
baoth had not left us a seed, 
we should have been as So- 
doma, and we should have 
been made like to Gomorrha. 



Eom. ix. 29. 
[KaBus irpoeipr)Kev 'Htraf'as,] 
El /ar; pvptos aaSauQ iyKare- 
Anrev 7)p.7v airepjxa, us 2<S5oyua 
av eyevi)8r]iJ.ev Kal us T6fioppa 
av ufioiicBrifiev. 

[As Esaias said before,] 
Except the Lord of Sabaoth 
had left us a seed, we had 
been as Sodoma and been 
made like Gomorrah. 



Is. i. 9. 

Ytfn "nixny njri* ^6 
•li^n Dhp? toyo? T"ib> u|j 

IWtfi TVpsk 

Except the Lord of hosts 
had left unto us a very small 
remnant, we should have 
been as Sodom, and we 
should have been like unto 
Gomorrah. 



(144.) Is. viii. 14., & xxviii. 
16. 
Kal oi>x «s AlBov TrpoffKSa- 
jxart (TvvavTr)a€(r6f, ovSe us 
irirpas irTufxaTt. — 'l5ov iyu 
ifi§dAAu els to. Sre/xeAia ~2,iuv 
AiBov iroAvTeArj iKAeKrbv d- 
Kpoyuvialov evTifiov, els rh 
jfrefiiAia avrrjs, Kal 6 marevuv 
ov ix}] Karaiux^vdy. 

And ye shall not come 
against him as against a 
stumbling-stone, neither as 
against the falling of a rock. 
Behold, I lay for thee in 
Sion, a costly stone, a choice, 
a corner stone, a precious 
stone, for its foundation ; and 
he that believes on him, shall 
by no means be ashamed. 



Rom. ix. 33. 

[KaBus yeypaTTTar"] 'ldov 
Tidrip.1 iv 'S.iuv AiBov rrpoo'KdfJ.- 
fiaros Kal nerpav crKavSdAov, 
Kal 6 wiffrevuv err' awry ov 
KaTai<rxvv6T)<reTai. 



[As it is written,] Behold, 
I lay in Sion a stumbling- 
stone, and rock of offence: 
and whosoever believeth on 
him shall not be ashamed. 



Is. viii. 14, & xxviii. 16 

'm 

)li2 }3« }3« |\»¥3 15! 

-id-id id-id t-typ. nis 
: tw s6 ptMgeo 

And he shall be for a 
stone of stumbling, and for 
a rock of offence. Behold I 
lay in Zion for a foundation 
a stone, a tried stone, a pre- 
cious corner stone, a sure 
foundation: he that believ- 
eth shall not make haste. 



142 This passage is from the LXX. The Hebrew has the same sense, but differs some- 
what in expression. 

144 This citation is taken from two places in Isaiah, which are put together, viz. xxviii. 
16. and viii. 14. The first agrees with the Hebrew, differing much from the LXX. The 
second coincides with the LXX. There is no ground for supposing with Randolph, that 
because the LXX. have mTaiffxwBr)o-eTat tne y rea( * ^*3J f° r ^0*» 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the Neic. 



149 



(145.) Lev. xviii. 5. 

*A TroiTJeras avra, &vdpai7ros 
tfiffercu iv aurois. 

Which if a man do he 
shall live in them. 



Eom. x. 5. 
[yioovfffjs yap ypdcpei •] &Vi 
6 noi-ficras [avra] &v9panros £V/- 
crerai iv avrij. 



Lev. xviii. 5. 

cnxn Dn'K n'^yi -it^'s 
: D.-12 *rn 

he 



[For Moses writeth,] That Which if a man do 
the man which doeth [those shall live in them, 
things] shall live by them. 



(146.) Deut. xxx. 12., &c. 

Ovk iv t<j> oipavcc &va> earl, 
\iyuv Tis ava§i)creTat t)/mv 
els rbv ovpavbv Kal Arityerat 
ijfuv avriiv, Kai aKovo-avres av- 
ripi iroirjcrofiev • ouSe irepav tt)s 
SuAdacrris icrrl, Keyaiv Tis Sia- 
irepdcrei r)fMV «s to irepav ttjs 
SaAacro-os, Kal XaSy ri/uv av- 
rty Kal aK0V(TT7)v tj/juv Tcoii)o-p 
avT rjv, KU ^ Troii}<TOii€V ; eyyvs 
crov icrrl to prjp-a cr<p6Spa ev 
Tip aronaTi crov Kal iv rfj Kap- 
oia. crov Kal iv toTs X e P a ^ (T0V 
iroielv avrd. 



It is not in heaven ahove. 
as if there were one saying, 
Who shall go up for us into 
heaven, and shall take it for 
us, and we will hear and do 
it. Neither is it beyond the 
sea, saying, Who will go 
over for us to the other side 
of the sea, and take it for us, 
and make it audible to us, 
and we will do it? The 
word is very near thee, in 
thy mouth, and in thine 
heart, and in thine hands to 
do it. 



Eom. x. 6, &c. 

['H 5e e/c iri<ntws OMaiocrvvr) 
ovtccs Aeyei,"] Mr) elrrris iv rrj 
Kapoia aov Tis ava€r)aerai els 
rbv ovpavSv ; tout' eariv xP t0 ~- 
rbv Karayayuv. r) Tis Kara- 
SriaeTai els rr/v dSvaaov ; tout' 
eariv XP' " T0I/ eK veKpSiv ava- 
yayetv — 'Eyyvs crov to ^irj/xd 
ianv, iv tc£ o'To'/xaTi crov Kal 
iv rfj KapSla, aov. 



[But the righteousness 
which is of faith speaketh 
on this wise,] Say not in 
thine heart, who shall ascend 
into heaven ? that is, to 
bring Christ down from 
above. Or, Who shall de- 
scend into the deep? that is, 
to bring up Christ again from 
the dead. — The word is nigh 
thee, even in thy mouth, and 
in thy heart. 



Deut. xxx. 12, &c. 

ibufe miq awn n^ 
Opi?"!) nwpwn ^rhvX *9 

pin's WWl) to\ nfij^.i 

, ?I5n t ??-1 ?pD2 'ifclD 13^3 

It is not in heaven, that 
thou shouldest say, Who shall 
go up for us to heaven, and 
bring it unto us, that we may 
hear it, and do it ? Neither 
is it beyond the sea, that 
thou shouldest say, Who shall 
go over the sea for us, and 
bring it unto us, that we may 
hear it, and do it? But the 
word is very nigh unto thee, 
in thy mouth, and in thy 
heart, that thou mayest do it. 



(147.) Is. xxviii. 16. 

'O iriarevuv oi /j.7) Karai- 
ffxvvBtj. 

He that believes on it shall 
by no means be ashamed. 



Eom. x. 11. Is. xxviii. 16. 

[AeVi ykp r) ypa^ff'] lias • $1Q1 ^ pt?g$g 

5 rnarevcev eV avTiS ov Karai- 
crxw8i)o-eTai. 

[For the Scripture saith,] He that believeth, shall 
Whosoever believeth on him not make haste, 
shall not be ashamed. 



146 It does not concern our present purpose to inquire in what way the apostle adapts the 
passage in Deuteronomy to his present purpose. It is evident that he uses it in another 
sense than that signified by the writer in Deuteronomy. There is a point of coincidence 
between the Mosaic idea in Deuteronomy and the apostolic one. There is nothing out of 
the reach of humanity or inaccessible in what the law demands; it merely requires per- 
formance — the doing of it. So there is nothing incomprehensible or remote in what the 
gospel requires ; it merely demands belief ; faith in its message. It is easy to see that 
there is no argument or proof in the passage. It is a mere accommodation of the Mosaic 
words. See Palfrey's Eelation between Judaism and Christianity, p. 258., and De Wetto 
(Exeget. Handbuch.). 

l 3 



150 



Biblical Criticism. 



(148.) Joel ii. 32. Rom. x. 13. Joelii. 32. 

Kal ecnai was os av eiriKa- lias yap l bs av eitiKaheffriTai £^2 Klp^lEW 72 iTTll 

AecrTjTai Ti) ovofxa Kvplov crccdrj- rb ovofx.a Kvpiov, (TcodijffeTai. " ' T: " '*'~ : . TT: 

<rercu. t rf?}2\ Hin* 

And it shall come to pass Tor whosoever shall call And it shall come to pass, 

that whosoever shall call on upon the name of the Lord that whosoever shall call on 

the name of the Lord shall shall be saved. the name of the Lord shall 

be saved. be delivered. 



(149.) Is. lii. 7. 

'Xls &pa eirl toiv opecov, ws 
TrdSes evayyeKiQo^evov o.kot)i> 
elpi]vr\s, ws evayyeAi£6[ievos 
ayadd. 



Eom. x. 15. Is. Hi. 7. 

[Ka8ws yeypairrai^ 'Cs ljjfl D^pP|"b? -ll«|"n© 
wpaloi ol ir65es ruu evayyeAt- . 



:aiB 



[As it is written,] How 
beautiful are the feet of them 



How beautiful upon the 
mountains are the feet of him 



A season of beauty upon 
the mountains, as the feet of 

one preaching glad tidings that bring glad tidings of that bringeth good tiding 
of peace, as one preaching good things, 
good news. 



that publisheth peace, that 
bringeth good tidings of 
good. 



(150.) Is. liii. 1. 

Kvpie, ti's ewiuTevcre t;7 
aKofj tjixSiv ; 

O Lord, who has believed 
our report ? 



Rom. x. 16. 

['Hcrat'as yap Aeyei"] Kvpie, 
t'is eirio-revarev rrj aKofj r)fj.wv ; 

[For Esaias saith,] Lord, 
who hath believed our re- 
port ? 



Is. liii. 1. 

f? ppgD *P 

Who hath believed our re- 
port ? 



(151.) Ps. xviii. 5. 

Eis wacrav rriv y-i)v e^rjAdev 
6 <pd6yyos avrwi', Kal els to. 
irepara ri)s oiKovyievr\s rd prj- 
/j.aTa avrwv. 

Their voice is gone out 
into all the earth, and their 
words to the end of the world. 



Rom. x. 18. 

[Mevovv ye •] Els iracrav tt\v 
y))v ei^Adev 6 (pddyyos avrwv, 
ical els rd irepara ttjs o'lKOv/xe- 
vr)s ra p7i/j.aTa avrwv. 

[Yes verily,] Their sound 
went into all the earth, and 
their words unto the ends of 
the world. 



Ps. xix. 4. 

OJj3 JS^I pan-Van 
: Dsyip ban nsi?5-i 

Their line is gone out 
through all the earth, and 
their words to the end of the 
world. 



(152.) Deut. xxxii. 21. 

Kayw napafyAwaw avrovs 
eV ovk e&vei, em. edvei dov- 
verw irapopyiw avrovs. 

And I will provoke them 
to jealousy with them that 
are no nation, I will anger 
them with a nation void of 
understanding. 



Rom. x. 19* 

[MasvtTTJs Aeyei •] 'E7<5j ira- 
paQr)Awcrw y,uas eV ovk edvei, 
iirl edvel acrvveTw irapopyiw 
v/J.ds. 

[Moses saith,] I will pro- 
voke you to jealousy by them 
that are no people, and by a 
foolish nation I will anger 
you. 



Deut. xxxii. 21. 

And I will move them to 
jealousy with those which are 
not a people ; I will provoke 
them to anger with a foolish 
nation. 



151 This quotation is taken from the LXX. It has been thought by some, as by Ran- 
dolph, that the Greek translators read D^'lp instead of Dip, and hence their rendering 
(pdoyyos ; whereas the present Hebrew denotes a line. And as the ancient versions trans- 
late it sound, they have been adduced to confirm the hypothesis. But neither the LXX. nor 
the other ancient interpreters had a different Hebrew word from the present one. Taking 
line in the sense of the string of a musical instrument, from which the transition to the sound 
produced is obvious, they rendered the term sound. But Hebrew usage does not sanction 
this meaning. The only signification is a measuring -line. The apostle did not reckon it 
necessary to depart from the LXX. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



151 



(153.) Is. lxv. 1, 2. 

'Efx<f>av^s £yevriQi)v rots ifxe 
fir] iirepairoio'iv, £vp£Qt\v rots 
ifie ixt) Qt)Tovcnv. — 'E|eTr€Tacra 
ras x^tpds fxov '6At}v ri\v rtfxipav 
npbs Aabv a-weidovvra Kal a.v. 
riAiyovra. 



I became manifest to them 
that asked not for me; I was 
found of them that sought 
me not : I have stretched 
forth my hands all day to a 
disobedient and gainsaying 
people. 



Rom. x. 20, 21. 

['H<ralas 8e airoroAfxa. Kal 
\4yei] EvpeBrjv [ev] rots e/xe 
fiTj forovcriv, ip.<pav}]s tyev6- 
fxrjv [eV] rots i/xh /x}] iwepa)- 
raicriv. — "OAijv ttji' rifxepav e|s. 
7T€Ta(Ta ras x^P^s l xov Tpbs 
Aabv aitsiOovvra. Kal avriAf- 
yovra. 

[But Esaias is very bold 
and saith,] I was found of 
them that sought me not ; I 
was made manifest unto them 
that asked not after me. — 
All day long I have stretched 
forth my hands unto a dis- 
obedient and gainsaying peo- 
ple. 



Is. lxv. 1, 2. 

I am sought of them that 
asked not for me ; I am found 
of them that sought me not. 
— I have spread out my hands 
all the day unto a rebellious 
people. 



(154.) 3 Kings six. 14. 

la. bv(narrrr\pid <rov Kadet- 
Aav, Kal robs irpo(pi]ras aov 
aneicreivav iv fio/xtyaia, Kal v- 
TroAeAti/x/xai iyto /xovwraros, 
Kal graven r))v ij^xV fxov 
Aa§etv avr-jv. 



They have overthrown 
thine altars, and have slain 
thy prophets with the sword! 
and 1 am left entirely alone, 
and they seek my life to 
take it. 



Rom. xi. 3. 
'Ev 'HAia Aeyet rj ypa<p-fi •] 
Kvpte, robs npo(p7)Tas aov o- 
ireKTeivav, ra. S)vaiaari)pid aov 
Kar4cKa\pav, Kayw vir(Aei(pdTji/ 
txdvos, Kal Qrjrovaiu ri)v tyvxv v 
fxov. 



[The Scripture saith in the 
Elias section,] Lord, they 
have killed thy prophets, and 
digged down thy altars; and 
I am left alone, and they 
seek my life. 



1 Kings xix. 14. 

m n\$) -iD-in *pjjh3p?-Ji$ 

j nnr^ 

They have thrown down 
thine altars, and slain thy 
prophets with the sword; and 
I, even I only am left, and 
they seek my hfe, to take it 
away. 



(155.) 3 Kings xix. 18. 

Kal KaraKefyeis eV 'Icrpa^A 
6TTTa X'^"*5as avopuv, irdvra 
y6vara & ovk &KAaaav y6vv 
ru< BdaA. 

And thou shalt leave in 
Israel seven thousand men, 
all the knees which had not 
bowed themselves to Baal. 



Rom. xi. 4. 

[Aeyei avrQ 6 xP r U xaTia '- 
fx6s •] KareAnrov i/xavrw e7r- 
raKiaxi-Xiovs &vSpas, o'lrives 
ovk enafj.\f/ap yovv rfj BdaA. 

[Saith the answer of God 
unto him,] I have reserved 
to myself seven thousand 
men, who have not bowed 
the knee to the image of 
Baal. 



1 Kings xix. 18. 

: byzb yrvpfo 

Yet I have left me seven 
thousand in Israel, all the 
knees which have not bowed 
unto Baal. 



(156.) Is. xxix. 10. 

"On ireirSriKev v/xas Kvpios 
irvev/xari Karavu£ea>s, Kal Ka/x- 
/xvaei robs 6<pdaA/xobs avr&v. 

For the Lord has made 
you to drink a spirit of deep 
sleep ; and he shall close 
their eyes. 



Rom. xi. 8. 



Is. xxix. 10. 



[Ka6dis yeypavrar} "E5oi- fl«n fj^ D3»2B ?J52"*2> 



itspflgrflQ Djsyy nm-iri 



K€v avrots 6 Seos Trvev/xa Kara 
vv£eci)S, ocpdaAfxobs rov /x}) $Ae 
■new Kal Sira rov /x^ aKovuv. 

[As it is written,] God Por the Lord hath poured 
hath given them the spirit of out upon you the spirit of 
slumber, eyes that they should deep sleep, and hath closed 
not see, and ears that they your eyes, 
should not hear. 



154 This is taken from the LXX., abridged, altered, and transposed. 

156 This quotation is taken from two passages mixed up together, viz. Isa. xxix. 10., and 
Deut. xxix. 3. (Suksv is borrowed from the latter. The Septuagint was the original 
source. 

l 4 



152 



Biblical Criticism. 



(157.) Ps. lxviii. 23, 24. 

Tev7iQi)rw 7) rpdire^a avrwv 
evwwtov avrwv els irayiSa, Kal 
els avranSSoo'tv Kal els okom- 
SaAov. ffKOTiaOiJTccffav ol ocp- 
OaAfxol avrwv rod /xrj fiAeireiv, 
Kal rbv vwrov avrwv Stawavrbs 
avyKa^ipov. 

Let their table before them 
be for a snare, and for a re- 
compense, and for a stum- 
bling-block; Let their eyes 
be darkened that they should 
not see; and bow down their 
back continually. 



Kom. xi. 9, 10. 
[AauelS Aeyei •] Yevr)Qt)rw 
r] Tp&irefa avrwv els irayiSa 
Kal els &f)pav Kal els ffKavSaAov 
Kal els avraitdoofia avrots, gko- 
TLcrdfiTacrav ol 6(p6aAfxol av- 
rwv rov ,ur) fiAeireiv, Kal rbv 
vwrov avrwv Sia iravrbs (Tvy- 

KafMpOV. 

[David saith,] Let their 
table be made a snare, and a 
trap, and a stumbling-block, 
and a recompense unto them : 
Let their eyes be darkened, 
that they may not see, and 
bow down then back always. 



Ps. lxix. 23, 24. 



Let their table become a 
snare before them : and that 
which should have been for 
their welfare, let it become a 
trap. Let their eyes be 
darkened that they see not; 
and make their loins conti- 
nually to shake. 



(158.) Is. lix. 20, 21. 

Kal ?';|€i eveKev ~2.iwv 6 pv6- 
/xevos Kal airoarpetf/ei aaeSel- 
as curb 'laKw€. Kal avrn ail- 
rots 7] irap' efwv Siad^Kn. 



And the deliverer shall 
come for Zion's sake, and 
shall turn away ungodliness 
from Jacob. And this shall 
be my covenant with them. 



Kom. xi. 26, 27. 

[Kadais yeypa-Krai •] "H£et 
4k 2,iwv 6 frvofxevos, uTrocrrpexpei 
acrefieias airb '\aKw§. Kal avrr) 
avrols 7] Trap' e/j.ov 5ia(W)K7j, 
'irav acpeAw/xai ras ajxaprias 
avrwv. 

[As it is written,] There 
shall come out of Sion the 
Deliverer, and shall turn 
away ungodliness from Ja- 
cob. For this is my covenant 
unto them, when I shall take 
away their sins. 



Is. lix. 20,21. 

♦jsi : rrin? dxj : apjpa vm 
i onix ■•nna mi: 

And the Redeemer shall 
come to Zion, and unto. them 
that turn from transgression 
in Jacob, saith the Lord. As 
for me, this is my covenant 
with them. 



(159.) Is. xl. 13. 

Tis eyvw vovv Kvpiov, Kal ris 
avrov avjj.€ov\os eyevero ■ 

Who has known the mind 
of the Lord ? and who has 
been his counsellor? 



Rom. xi. 34. 
Tts yap eyvcc vovv Kvpiov ; t) 
rls av/j£ovAos avrov eyevero ; 



Is. xl. 13. 

:-i5^nV inyy : b*k\ 

Tor who hath known the Who hath directed the 
mind of the Lord ? or who Spirit of the Lord, or being 
hath been his counsellor ? his counsellor, hath taught 
him ? 



(160.) Deut. xxxii. 35. 

'Ev 7}fxepa eKOiKTicrews avra- 
wob'wffw. 

In the day of vengeance, 
I will: 



Rom. xii. 19. 

[Teypanrai ydp-~] 'E,uoi e/c- 
SiKTjrns, eyw hvrairoh'wcrw, Ae- 
yei Kvpios. 

[For it is written,] Ven- 
geance is mine; I will repay, 
saith the Lord. 



Deut. xxxii. 35. 

To me belongeth ven- 
geance and recompence. 



(161.) Prov. xxv. 21, 22. 

'Eav ireivu 6 4x6p6s crov, 
ibwjxi^e avrov, ea.v 8i\j/S, iro- 



Rom. xii. 20. Prov. xxv. 21, 22. 

'AA\a i&v weiv§ 6 i X 6 P 6s -irfexn ?\$& ayvD*? 

crov, tyw/M^e avrdv eav Si^/S, 



158 This passage is cited freely from the LXX., with the insertion of some words from 
Isa. xxvii. 9. Instead of e'/c the LXX. have eve K ev. In the Hebrew, •? is prefixed to Sion. 
trav cupeAwnai ras afxaprias avrwv is from Isa. xxvii. 9. One clause in the Hebrew is im- 
properly rendered by the Septuagint, viz. a'pj£3 W% ^Vp.\ airocrrpetyei aireSeias anb 
'Iaia&6. It is wrong to suppose that the translators had not the Hebrew just as we now 
have it. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the Neio. 



153 



Tife avTov' tovto yap iroiuv ironfe avr6v. tovto yap iroi- J Q^tt -inj^n NttVDX) Dn^ 
&v9paKas irvpbs caipevtreis M up &v8paKas wvpbs ffupevcrns , " ' " T ." ! VT 

tt]v KicpaX^v avrov, eVl ttjp KecpaA^P avTov. ~?V_ Hrin HRX QvllJ *3 

: Wan 



If thine enemy hunger, 
feed him ; if he thirst, give 
him drink; for so doing thou 
shalt heap coals of fire upon 
his head. 

(162.) Ex. xx. 13— 17; Lev. 
xix. 18. 
OJ noixevtreis. ov K\4\peis. 
ov (puvevaeis. ov \pev5o/j.aprv- 
pr)o-eis. ovk iiridv^aeis. 'A- 
yairqo-eis rbv TrA7]o~iov aov us 
<TtavT6v. 



Thou shalt not commit 
adultery, Thou shalt not steal, 
Thou "shalt not kill, Thou 
shalt not bear false witness, 
Thou shalt not covet, Thou 
shalt love thy neighbour as 
thyself. 

(163.) Is. xlv. 23. 

Kot' e/xavrov bfxvvu, el fir) 
e^e\evcreTai 4k too (Tr6jxar6s 
fj.ov SiKaiocrvyrj, ot \6yoi /xov 
ovk awoaTpatp-oaroVTai, ort 4/u.ol 
ndfiipei Trap yovv, Kal d/xuTai 
Traaa yKuaaa rov 8is6v. 

By myself, I swear, right- 
eousness shall surely proceed 
out of my mouth; my words 
shall not be frustrated; that 
to me every knee shall bend, 
and every tongue shall swear 
by God. 

(164.) Ps. lxviii. 10. 

Ot opeiSicr/xol tup opetb'i^op- 
tup o~e eTreVecroi' eir' ijj.4. 

And the reproaches of 
them that reproached thee 
are fallen upon me. 

(165.) Ps. xvii. 50. 

Aia tovto e£o,uoAo7ij<70,uai 
aot eV tBveffi, Kvpte, Kal tu 6- 
po/ian o~dv \pa\u. 

Therefore, will I confess 
to thee, Lord, among the 
Gentiles, and sing to thy 
name. 



Therefore if thine enemy 
hunger, feed him; if he thirst, 
give him drink : for in so 
doing thou shalt heap coals 
of fire on his head. 

Rom. xiii. 9. 



Ov fioixtvo'eis, ov (povevo-eis, 
ov K\4\pets, ovk 4m9v[j.r)crets. 
'AyaTrqo-eLs tov TrArjaiop aov 
us aeavrdv. 



Thou shalt not commit 
adultery, Thou shalt not kill, 
Thou shalt not steal, Thou 
shalt not covet, Thou shalt 
love thy neighbour as thy- 
self. 



Rom. xiv. 11. 
[TeypaTTTat yap •] Zu iyu, 
\4yct Kvpios, on 4/j.ol Ka/j.\pet 
■nap ydvv, Kal e£onoAoyf]creTai 
waaa y\uaaa t<$ Seu. 



[For it is written,] As I 
live, saith the Lord, every 
knee shall bow to me, and 
every tongue confess to God. 



Rom. xv. 3. 
[Kadus yiypamai •] Ot 
ov etSta/xol tup bi>ei8i£6vTuv ere 
eVeVecrav eV 4/x4. 

[As it is written,] The 
reproaches of them that re- 
proached thee fell on me. 

Pom. xv. 9. 

[Kaflis yiypa-KTai •] Aia 
tovto i^o/xoAoyqaofiai aot iv 
edpeatp, Kal tu bv6\t.an aov 
tyaAu. 

[As it is written,] Por 
this cause I will confess to 
thee among the Gentiles, 
and sing unto thy name. 



If thine enemy be hungry, 
give him bread to eat; and if 
he be thirsty, give him water 
to drink : for thou shalt heap 
coals of fire upon his head. 

Ex. xx. 13. 14.(13-17.); Lev. 
xix. 18. 

*$ 'rfghn n;y : n *6 : niyi 

ri^nx) : ibnrr*& : ipej 

: TjiD3 r\$$ 

Thou shalt not kill. Thou 
shalt not commit adultery. 
Thou shalt not steal. Thou 
shalt not bear false witness 
against thy neighbour. Thou 
shalt not covet. Thou shalt 
love thy neighbour as thyself. 

Is. xlv. 23. 

yiqn ^->3 3-ib» lib) nan 

I have sworn by myself, 
the word is gone out of my 
mouth in righteousness, and 
shall not return, That unto 
me every knee shall bow, 
every tongue shall swear. 

Ps. Lxix. 10. (9.) 

And the reproaches of 
them that reproached thee 
are fallen on me. 

Ps. xviii. 50. (49.) 

njn* ofla ^irrix $■*?% 
: rnsrx ^p^-i 

Therefore will I give thanks 
unto thee, O Lord, among 
the heathen, and sing praises 
unto thy name. 



163 This is a free citation, agreeing neither with the Hebrew nor the LXX. (u 4yd> is not 
in the text of Isaiah, but the clause / swear by myself corresponds to it. The LXX., ac- 
cording to the Vatican text, follow the Hebrew closely in <5/tetTat iraaa yXuaaa Thy Beop, 
but the Alexandrine text agrees with the apostle. 



154 



Biblical Criticism. 



(166.) Deut. xxxii. 43. 

EvtypdvO-rp-e %dvr\ (xera rov 
Xaov avrov. 

Rejoice, ye Gentiles, -with 
his people. 



Rom. xv. 10. 
[TlaAiv \eyei'"] Ev<ppdp6r]Te 
edvy] fiera rov Xaov avrov. 

[Again he saith,] Rejoice, 
ye Gentiles, with his people. 



Deut. xxxii. 43. 

Rejoice, ye nations, with 
his people. 



(167.) Ps. cxvi. 1. 

Aive'tre rov Kvpiov vdvra ra 
edvr], eiraivicare avrbv irdvres 
ol Aaoi. 



Praise the Lord, 
nations 
peoples 



Rom. xv. 11. Ps. cxvii. 1. 

irdvra ra edvr) tov nvpiov, Kal 
eiraiveo-dTwaav avrbv Trdvres 
ol Aaoi. 

[And again he saith,] 
praise him, all ye Praise the Lord, all ye Gen- 
tiles; and laud him, all ye 
people. 



yo 



Praise the Lord, all ye 
nations : praise him, all ye 
people. 



(168.) Is. xi. 10. 

Kal tffrai if rfj vixepa. e/ce£- 
vr\ r) f>i£a rod 'Istrcrat Kal o 
aviardfj-ivos &px^^" idvcov, eir' 
aiiTij) I0C7J iAinova'i. 



And in that day there shall 
be a root of Jesse, and he 
that shall arise to rule over 
the Gentiles ; in him shall 
the Gentiles trust. 



Rom. xv. 12. 



['Hffaios Xeyei •] "Effrai i) 
t>i(jx rov 'leaaal, Kal 6 avtcrrd- 
fxevos upxeiv idvcbv, eV avra 
edvi) eXiriovo-LV. 



[Esaias saith,] There shall 
be a root of Jesse, and he 
that shall rise to reign over 
the Gentiles; in him shall 
the Gentiles trust. 



Is. xi. 10. 

tfp K-inn dV3 njn} 
wv d& ip'y im w\ 
j-itJhT. Dtfa v^s 

And in that day there 
shall be a root of Jesse, 
which shall stand for an en- 
sign of the people ; to it shall 
the Gentiles seek. 



(169.) Is. lii. 15. 

"On oTs ovk avTiyy4\r] irepl 
avrov, otyovrai, Kal ol ovk d- 
KT)K6aat, o~vvr)o-ovo~i. 

For they to whom no re- 
port was brought concerning 
him, shall see ; and they who 
have not heard, shall con- 
sider. 



Rom. xv. 21. 
[Ka0u>s yeypairrai •] Oh 
ovk avriyyeAr) irtpl avrov, 6- 
\povrai, Kal ol ovk aKT)K6ao~tv, 
avvT\aovo-iv, 

[As it is written,] To whom 
he was not spoken of they 
shall see : and they that have 
not heard shall understand. 



Is. lii. 15. 

For that which had not 
been told them shall they 
see; and that which they had 
not heard shall they consider. 



(170.) Is. xxix. 14. 1 Cor. i. 19. 

Kal aTToXcc rrjv (Tocplav rwv ^Teypairrai yap •] 'AttoAu> 

ao(pS>v, Kal r\]v avveffiv rwv tt\v cro<piav rwv o~o(pwv, Kal rrjv 

crvver&v Kpv^oo. avveaiv rwv avver&v aderyjaco. 

And I will destroy the [For it is written,] I will 

wisdom of the wise, and will destroy the wisdom of the 

hide the understanding of wise, and will bring to no- 

the prudent. thing the understanding of 

the prudent. 



Is. xxix. 14. 

For the wisdom of their 
wise men shall perish, and 
the understanding of their 
prudent men shall be hid. 



168 This is from Deut. xxxii. 43. exactly according to the LXX. The Hebrew has rejoice 
ye tribes, his people ; but the Septuagint, in which two different translations are com- 
bined, one being a gloss, i.e. 1EJJ, f^erd, and 1*3}?, 6 Aabs avrov, have with his people. The 
Masoretic punctuation is right, and the Septuagint incorrect. To say with Scott that " the 
Septuagint give the genuine meaning of the Hebrew, though, in the abrupt language of 
poetry, the preposition signifying with is omitted," (Christian Observer,) is either saying 
nothing to the purpose, or asserting what is wholly untenable. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



155 



(171.) Jer. is. 24. 

'Ev toutcjj KavxacrOai 6 kolv- 
X&lJ-svos, ffvvizlv Kal yivwcrKeiv 
otl eydi el/xi Kvpios 6 iroiwv e- 
keos Kal Kpl/xa Kal SiKaioffvvnv 
iirl rrjs yjjs. 



Let him that boasts boast 
in this, the understanding 
and knowing that I am the 
Lord that exercise mercy, 
and judgment, and right- 
eousness, upon the earth. 



(172.) Is. Ixiv. 4. 

'Aftb rod alwvos ovk i)kov- 
aafiev ovSh ol o<p8ak/j.ol 71/j.ciu 
elb~ov i&ebe tt\i)v aov Kal to 
%pya aov a 7roiTJ<reiy Toh inro- 
ixzvovaw i\eov. 

From of old we have not 
heard, neither have our eyes 
seen a God beside thee, and 
thy works which thou wilt 
perform to them that wait 
for mercy. 



1 Cor. i. 31. 
[Kafoos yiy painai •] 'O Kav- 
Xu^vos ev Kvpico Kai;^ac7"0ai. 



[As it is written,] He that 
glorieth, let him glory in the 
Lord. 



1 Cor. ii. 9. 
[KaO<bs yeypa-n-Taf"] *A o<p- 
BaXjxbs ovk eTSef Kal ovs ovk 
tJKOvaev Kal iirl KapSiav avdpu- 
■wov ovk ave€rj, '6cra fiTol/j-aaev 
6 debs to7s ayairSiffiv avrdv. 

[As it is written,] Eye 
hath not seen, nor ear heard, 
neither have entered into 
the heart of man, the things 
which God hath prepared 
for them that love him. 



Jer. ix. 23. (24.) 

hprt nb>y rr\n\ *jg *? 
:}nx3 nirjy-i tos^'p 

Let him that glorieth glory 
in this, that he understand- 
eth and knoweth me, that I 
am the Lord, which exercise 
loving-kindness, judgment, 
and righteousness, in the 
earth. 

Is. Ixiv. 4. 

Since the beginning of the 
world men have not heard, 
nor perceived by the ear, 
neither hath the eye seen, O 
God, beside thee, what he 
hath prepared for him that 
waiteth for him. 



(173.) Is. xl. 13. 

Tis %yva> vovv Kvpiov, Kal 
ris avrov o-v/.igov\os eyevero, 
ts avp.§L§a avrdv ; 

Who has known the mind 
of the Lord ? and who has 
been his counsellor to in- 
struct him? 



1 Cor. ii. 16. 

Ti'j yap eyvca vovv Kvpio 
os avuSiSdaei avr6v : 



For who hath known the 
mind of the Lord that he 
may instruct him ? 



Is. xl. 13. 

Who hath directed the 
Spirit of the Lord, or, being 
his connsellor hath taught 
him? 



(174.) Job v. 13. 

'O KaraXa/xSavicv o~ocpovs 
rfj <ppovfio~ei. 



1 Cor. iii. 19. 
[TtypaiTTai yap'~\ 'O Spacr- 
adfxevos robs aotpo'vs ev Trj 
■navovpyla aiiraiv. 



Job v. 13. 



Ir - This citation • is attended with many difficulties. It has more resemblance to Isa. 
Ixiv. 4. than to any other place in the Old Testament, and therefore many think that it 
has been very freely taken from it memoriter ; some other passages in Isa., as lii. 15. and 
lxv. 17., being also in the apostle's mind. Origen and several of the fathers think it was 
quoted from the apocryphal work called the Revelation of Elias, in which we are assured 
by one writer that the words of the apostle were actually found. This view has been 
adopted by Meyer in modern times, though he allows that Kadws yeypairrai. at the 
commencement, is always applied elsewhere to canonical works. Eandolph errs in affirm- 
ing that " the passage is so near to the Hebrew, both in sense and words, that we cannot 
suppose it to be taken from anywhere else." (Page 39.) The difficulty lies in its remote- 
ness from the Hebrew text. Nor is it certain that the Hebrew is here greatly corrupted, 
as Kandolph asserts; or that it is impossible to make sense of it. Gesenius has made 
sense of it as it is ; so has Knobel. There is not the least ground for supposing the 
Hebrew corrupt. On the whole, though Origen's view is not improbable, we are inclined 
to believe that the apostle quoted freely from a reminiscence of Isa. Ixiv. 3.; other prophe- 
cies of the writer floating in his mind at the same time. For full information on the verse, 
we refer to the commentaries of De "Wette and Meyer on the New Testament, and to those 
of Gesenius and Knobel on the Old. 



156 



Biblical Criticism. 



Who takes the wise in 
their wisdom. 

(175.) Ps. xciii. 11, 

Kvpws yivc&ffKei tovs SiaXo- 
•yifffxobs tS>v avdpcoTveov Sti eio~l 
fidraioi. 

The Lord knows the 
thoughts of men that they are 
vain. 

(176.) Gen. ii. 24. 

Kal effovrai oi Svo els ffdp- 
Ka /Jiiav. 

And they two shall he one 
flesh. 



[For it is written,] He He taketh the wise in their 
taketh the wise in their own own craftiness, 
craftiness. 



1 Cor. iii. 20. 



Ps. xciv. 11. 



[Kal irdXiv •] Kipios yivd- DHX nil^HD VT HirV. 

avcei tovs SiaXoyio'/xovs tSsv ' I 

ao<pS>v, Sti elalv /xdTouoi. • '3^! nBiJ 3 

[And again,] The Lord The Lord knoweth the 

knoweth the thoughts of the thoughts of man, that they 

wise, that they are vain. are vanity. 



1 Cor. vi. 16. 

"EffovTai yap \_(pr\<Tiv\ oi 
Svo els adpKa fiiav. 

For two [saith he] shall 
he one flesh. 



Gen. ii. 24. 

And they shall he one 
flesh. 



(177.) Deut. xxv. 4. 

Ov (pifu&creis fiovv aXoooVTa. 



Thou shalt not muzzle the 
ox that treads out the corn. 



Deut. xxv. 4. 



1 Cor. ix. 9. 

['Ev yap T<j3 McDvcreus v6fiu> 
yeypaiTTafJ Ov <ptp.w<reis fiovv 
aXowvTa. 

[For it is written in the Thou shalt not muzzle the 
law of Moses,] Thou shalt ox when he treadeth out the 
not muzzle the mouth of the corn. 
ox that treadeth out the corn. 



(178.) Ex. xxxii. 6. 

Kal eitdQiaev b Xabs <paye?u 
Kal irietv, Kal ave<TT7)aav irai- 
feiv. 

And the people sat down 
to eat and drink, and rose 
up to play. 



1 Cor. x. 7. 



Ex. 



l"n<nrep yeypawjai ] 'Eko.- \j-^\ 72$k DJJn 3#»1 
Qicrev 6 Xabs tpayelv Kal irieiv, ' '"'' TT . """" 

: pnv? -iDi?»i 



koi aveoTqaav itai^eiv. 

[As it is written,] The 
people sat down to eat and 
drink, and rose up to play. 



And the people sat down 
to eat and to drink, and rose 
up to play. 



(179.) Deut. xxxii. 17. 

"Edvo'av Satfxouiois Kal ov 
Stew. 

They sacrificed to devils 
and not to God. 



Deut. xxxii. 17. 



1 Cor. x. 20. 

['AAA'] Sti a bvova-iv Sai- 
fioviois Kal ov &e$ frvovaiv. 

[But,] That the things They sacrificed unto de- 
which the Gentiles sacrifice, vils, not to God. 
they sacrifice to devils, and 
not to God. 



(180.) Ps. xxiii. 1. 

Tov Kvpiov r) yrj ko.1 to irXr)- 
poofxa avTTJs. 

The earth is the Lord's 
and the fulness thereof. 



1 Cor. x. 26. 

Tov Kvpiov yap r) yrj Kal to 
TrXi)picfxa aiiTrjs. 

For the earth is the Lord's, 
and the fulness thereof. 



Ps. xxiv. 1. 

: FiNi^-i pan riirt^ 

The earth is the Lord's, 
and the fulness thereof. 



(181.) Is. xxviii. 11, 12. 1 Cor. xiv. 21. Is. xxviii. 11, 12. 

Aia cpavAi<rfxbi> x ei ^ wv > Sia ['Er t§ v6[xca yeypaitTai •] jit^^-l HQb* ''Jy?? ''S 



175 This citation agrees equally with the LXX. and with the Hebrew. It differs from both 
only in the word o-o<pS>v, for DTK, avepuwwv, but this does not alter the sense. Those 
MSS. of the Pauline Epistles, as well as versions that have dvBpdnrwv, have it by correction. 

179 This is not so much a citation as a reminiscence from Deut. xxxii. 17., in the LXX. 

181 This quotation, taken from Isa. xxviii. 11., deviates considerably from the LXX. 
Eandolph asserts incorrectly that it is not taken from the LXX. but either from the He- 
brew or some other translation (page 40.). 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the Neiv. 



157 



yX(iiffffT]S trepas, on XaX-ricrov- 
crt t<j> A.a<£ TovTcf— Kal ovk rj- 
6i\i)oav a.Koi>etv. 

By reason of the contemp- 
tuous words of the lips, by 
means of another language : 
for they shall speak to this 
people. But they would not 
near. 

(182.) Ps. cix. 1. 

"Eccs ay &<£ tovs exfyovs crov 
virotrdSiov ruv iroSaiv crov. 

Until I make thine ene- 
mies thy footstool. 



(183.) Ps. viii. 7. 

TlauTa inrtTa^as vnoKaTO) 
twv iroSoov aiirov. 

Thou hast put all things 
under his feet. 

(184.) Is. xxii. 13. 



'6ti Iv eTepoy\w<Tcrois Kal iv 
XeiXecriv kripcav \aX-r\crw t<£ 
Aa<$> tovtcj), Kal oiib" ovtois elcr- 
aKovcrovTod p.ov, Xeyei Kvpios. 

[In the law it is written,] 
With men of other tongues 
and other lips will I speak 
unto this people ; and yet 
for all that will they not hear 
me, saith the Lord. 

1 Cor. xv. 25. 
"Axpts ov &j? iravTas tovs 
ixSpoiis [auToO] vtto tovs tc6- 
5os auTov. 

Till he hath put all (his) 
enemies under his feet. 



1 Cor. xv. 27. 

TldvTa. yap vireTa^ev vnb 
tovs ndSas avTov. 

For he hath put all things 
under his feet. 

1 Cor. xv. 32. 



:srto# K-n« ah) — 



For with stammering lips 
and another tongue will he 
speak to this people: — yet 
they would not hear. 



Ps. ex. 1. 

Sit thou at my right hand, 
until I make thine enemies 
thy footstool. 

Ps. viii. 7. 

Thou hast put all things 
under his feet. 

Is. xxii. 13. 



yap a.TrudvriO'KOfKi'. yap a-Kodv7]crKoixev. ' Jimuj inu 3 lilK'j 71JJS 

Let us eat and drink; for Let us eat and drink ; for Let us eat and drink; for 
to-morrow we die. to-morrow we die. to-morrow we shall die. 



(185.) Gen. ii. 7. 

Kal iyevtTO 6 avdponros els 

And the man became a 
living soul. 



1 Cor. xv. 45. 

[Ovtois Kal yiypamo.i •] 
'EydvtTo 6 irpoiTos [dvdponros] 
'A5a/j. els ^ivxh v (ficrav. 

[And so it is written,] 
The first [man] Adam was 
made a living soul. 

(186.) Is. xxv. 8. 1 Cor. xv. 54. 

KaTeirtev 6 SdvaTos lax"' [TSre yevrio-eTai 6 xSyos 6 
ffas. yeypafj./u.evos''] KaTenddri & &d- 

varos els vTkos. 
Death hath prevailed and [Then shall be brought to 
swallowed men up. pass the saying that is writ- 

ten,] Death is swallowed up 
in victory. 



(187.) Hos. xiii. 14. 

TIov t) S'lkti crov, Sdvare ; 
irov to Kevrpov crov, a'Sij ; 

Where is thy penalty, 
death? O Hades, where is 
thy sting? 



1 Cor. xv. 55. 
ITou crov, &dvaT€, to vinos ; 
irov aov, SdvaTe, rb KevTpov ; 

death, where is thy vic- 
tory? death, where is 
thy sting ? 



Gen. ii. 7. 



And man became a living 
soul. 



Is. xxv. 8. 



He will swallow up death 
in victory. 



Hos. xiii. 14. 

O death, I will be thy 
plagues ; O grave, I will be 
thy destruction. 



187 This is a free citation from the LXX, who have not rendered the Hebrew closely or 
correctly, for they have irov for ^T)^ as if it were H'S, v S'lkt] crov for TH^n, and to KevTpov 
crov for 'pi?!?. Those who think that the Hebrew should be corrected by the New Testa- 
ment here, proposing to change *IlS I will be, into JI.JX where, are altogether mistaken. 



158 



Biblical Criticism. 



(188.) Ps. cxv. l. 

'EiriffTivcxa, Sib i\d\r]<Ta. 



2 Cor. iv. 13. 
[Kara rb yeypa/xfievov ] 
'EirioreiKxa, Sib i\d\r]cra. 



Ps. cxvi. 10. 



I believed, wherefore I [According as it is writ- I believed, therefore have 
have spoken. ten,] I believed, and there- I spoken, 

fore have I spoken. 



(189.) Is. xlix. 8. 

Kaipcp 8eKT$ iirfiKOvffd (Tov, 
Kal iv rifiepa crwTTiplas i§oi]- 
Orjcrd o~oi' 

In an acceptable time have 
I heard thee, and in a day of 
salvation have I succoured 
thee. 



(190.) Lev. xxvi. 11, 12. 

Kal &7J<T6o tV (TKrjvhv /J.0V 
iv vfxiv — Kal e^TrepiTTOTTJcru) iv 
vfiiv, Kal eao^ai vfiHv debs Kal 
vfieh eaeade not Aa6s. 



And I will set my taber- 
nacle among you, and will 
walk among you, and be 
your God, and ye shall be 
my people. 

(191.) Is.lii. 11,12. ; 2 Kings 
vii. 14. 
'AirocrrvTe an6o-Ti]Te, i£e\- 
Bare iKeidev Kal aKaddprov 
H$j atyrjade, e£e\6ere e/c fiecrov 
aires' — irpoiropeiiaerat yap 
TrpSrepos v/xciv Kvpios' ^'Eycb 
eaop-ai avTq> els itarepa Kal 
aiirbs earat fJtot els vl6v. 



Depart ye, depart, go out 
from thence, and touch not 
the unclean thing; go ye out 
from the midst of her ; for 
the Lord shall go first before 
you. I will be to him a 
father, and he shall be to 
me a son. 



2 Cor. vi. 2. 
[Aeyet ydp-J Kaipw 5e/rr<£ 
iir7]K0V(Td aov, Kal iv fjfiepa o-ai- 
rripias i§oi)9r]o~d crot. 

[For he saith,] I have 
heard thee in a time ac- 
cepted, and in the day of 
salvation have I succoured 
thee. 

* 2 Cor. vi. 16. 
TKaOiis elirev 6 Se6s-~\ '6rt 
eeoi/ojcrco ev avrois Kai efnrepi- 
Trarrjaco, Kal ecro/j.ai avrwv bebs, 
Kal avrol eaovrai /aov Aa6s. 



[As God hath said,] I will 
dwell in them, and walk in 
them; and I will be their 
God, and they shall be my 
people. 

2 Cor. vi. 17, 18. 



Alb i£e\Qare eK ixeffov av- 
ru>v Kal a<popi<r6riTe, [Ae'yei 
Kvpios~\ Kal aKaddprov frh S- 
irreaQe ' Kayu) eloSe^o/j.ai v/j.as, 
Kal ecrofxai v/juv els irarepa, Kal 
v/xe7s eae<yQe /xoi els vlobs Kal 
frvyarepas, [\eyet Kvpios irav- 

T0K0aT(llp.~\ 



"Wherefore come out from 
among them, and be ye sepa- 
rate [saith the Lord,] and 
touch not the unclean thing ; 
and I will receive you ; and 
will be a father unto you, 
and ye shall be my sons and 
daughters [saith the Lord 
Almighty.] 



Is. xlix. 8. 

In an acceptable time have 
I heard thee, and in a day 
of salvation have I helped 
thee. 

Lev. xxvi. 11, 12. 

— D??in? ^3^p *nrm : 
iTy*x\\ D5.5"in3 M^nnni : 

And I will set my taber- 
nacle among you: — and I 
will walk among you, and 
will be your God, and ye 
shall be my people. 

Is.lii. 11, 12.; 2 Sam. vii. 12. 

'K£b DKn? -ixy niD vyid 
-n*n* swi b$> '"frmm 

Depart ye, depart ye, go 
ye out from thence, touch 
no unclean thing; go ye out 
of the midst of her : for the 
Lord will go before you. — I 
will be his Father, and he 
shall be my son. . 



190 From Levit. xxvi. 11, 12. in the Septuagint. What was spoken of the Israelites is 
here applied to Christians. Instead of 07j<ra> r)]v o-kijvtjv fiov, the apostle has ivoiK-rjo-a. He 
also changes the pronouns to make them coincide with the oratio obliqua. 

191 This is freely taken from the LXX. The prophet refers to the departure from Baby- 
lon. Here the same is applied to Christians. Hence it was necessary for the Apostle to 
depart from the words of the Old Testament, though he subjoins notwithstanding his 
favourite expression Aeyet Kvpios. The 18th verse is founded on various passages, such as 
2 Sam. vii. 14., Jer. xxxi. 9 — 33., xxxii. 38., but chiefly on the first. In various places 
God promises to be a father to Israel and to Solomon, which the apostle applies to Chris- 
tians in general. 



(192.) Ex. xvi. 18. 

Ovk iir\e6vaosv 6 to tto\v, 
leal 6 to eKaTTOV ovk 7)Ko.tt6 

Vt]Ct<iV. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 
2 Cor. -viii. 15. 



159 



Ex. xvi. 18. 



[Ka0o>s yiypaTTTafJ 'O to J-Q'Tjgin 
■koXv ovk iirteSvacrev, koI 5 to 

bxiyov ovk 7]Karr6v7](TiV. * 1*PDH N ' ^^P^Jll 

[As it is written,] He that He that gathered much, 
had gathered much had had nothing over, and he 
he that had gathered less had nothing over; and he that that gathered little had no 
no lack. had gathered little had no lack, 

lack. 



He that had gathered 
much had nothing over, and 



(193.) Prov. xxii. 8. 

"AvSpa lAapbv nal So'ttjj' eu- 
Aoyet 6 Se6s. 

God blesses a cheerful man 
and a giver. 

(194.) Ps. cxi. 9. 

'Eo-Kopinaty, tSaiKe to?s ire- 
v-qcriv, t] SiKaioo-vvr] avrov fxivei 
els tov alSiva tov axUivos. 

He has dispersed abroad ; 
he has given to the poor; his 
righteousness endures for 
evermore. 



2 Cor. ix. 7. 
'Wapbv yap SoVtjp ayaira 6 
S>e6s. 

For God loveth a cheerful 
giver. 



Prov. xxii. 9. 

:ipn; K-Vn pjrnita 

He that hath a bountiful 
eye shall be blessed. 



2 Cor. ix. 9. Ps. cxii. 9. 

[KaSois yeypa.nTai-~\ 'E<rKd>- \T\j£Y$ DVlVax!? JD3 "I-T3 



TTHTev, eSwKev tols TrevT]<Tiv 
SiKawavi/r] avTov fievei ds tov 
alSiva. 

[As it is -written,] He 
hath dispersed abroad ; he 
has given to the poor; his 
righteousness remaineth for 
ever. 



He hath dispersed, he hath 
given to the poor; his right- 
eousness endureth for ever. 



(195.) Deut. xix. 15. 2 Cor. xiii. 1. Deut. xix. 15. 

'Eirl o-ToVaTos h~iio fxaprv- 'Ew\ aro^aros Svo fiapru- ^3"^ IX D^IV 'J^ ''S"?^ 

poiv Kal iirl <tt6/j.o.tos rpicov poiv /cat rpiwv o-rad-qo-fTai vclv . . 

fxaprvpwv arrja-erai ttuv prj/xa. prjpa. ♦ "^^J ^"'Pt " Tk~'t ': 

By the mouth of two wit- In the mouth of two or At the mouth of two wit- 
nesses or by the mouth of three witnesses shall every nesses, or at the mouth of 
three witnesses shall every word be established. three witnesses, shall the 
word be established. matter be established. 



(196.) Gen. xii. 3. 

Ko) £vev\oyT}QiiffovTai £v <rol 
■naaat ai <pv\al ttjs yr)S. 



And in thee shall all tribes 
of the earth be blessed. 



Gal hi. 8. Gen. xii. 3. (see xviii. 18.) 

[UpoiSodaa Se t, ypatp^ n'nwvn ^'-i 4-1 Wv..* 

TrpoevyyyeXicraTO r$ 'AjSpa- nn fV9 ?3 1? ,D W) 

dir] OTt £vev\oyT]8ri<7ovTai iv , _£.»-»._ 

aol Travra to idvi]. * T T ~ T 

[And the scripture, fore- And in thee shall all fa- 
seeing .... preached unto miliesof the earth be blessed. 
Abraham,] In thee shall all 
nations be blessed. 



(197.) Deut. xxvii. 26. 

''EmKa.TcipaTOS nas avQpuiros 
t>s ovk itifxevei iv Traai ro7s 
\6yois tov vopiov tovtov iroi- 
Tjaai ainovs. 

Cursed is every man that 
continues not in all the words 
of this law to do ihem. 



Gal. iii. 10. 
[VeypamTai yap •] otj 67rt- 
Kardparos iras ts ovk i/x/xivet 
iv naaiv tois yeypa/x/xevois iv 

TCfi /3l§Aia> TOV VO/XOV, TOV WOlTj- 

crai avrd. 

[Eor it is written,] Cursed 
is every one that continueth 
not in all things which are 
written in the book of the 
law to do them. 



Deut. xxvii. 26. 

tw^l DN-rn-minn n:n 



Cursed be he that con- 
firmeth not all the words of 
this law to do them. 



197 This citation is from the LXX., but freely. 



160 



Biblical Criticism. 



(198.) Hab. ii. 4.; Lev. xviii. 
5. 



Gal. in. 11, 12. 



Hab. ii. 4. ; Lev. xviii. 5. 



'O 8e hixaios e/c itiffreiLs fiov "On 6 Blicaios e/c iriarecos } flTT 1 iD3-1DX2 p^VI 

0]creTai.— A ironfjtras avra &v- ffitrerai. — 'O iroiijaas aiiTa 

Opanros 0\azTai iv avrots. ^(rerot iv avTois. *0J E"lXn DUN 7\&V.\ "I^X 

The just shall live by my The just shall live by faith. The just shall live by his 

faith.— Which if a man do — The man that doeth them faith. — Which if a man do, 

he shall live in them. shall live in them. he shall live in them. 



(199.) Deut. xxi. 23. 

KeKarripapLepos virb &eoD nas 
KpepLa/xevos eVj |uAoi>. 

Every one that is hanged 
on a tree is cursed of God. 



Gal. iii. 13. 

["On yey pairrai •] 'Em/fa- 
rdparos nas 6 Kpept.djj.evos eirl 
£vAov. 

[For it is written,] Cursed 
is eveiy one that hangeth on cursed of God. 



Deut. xxi. 23. 
He that is hanged is ac- 



(200.) Gen. xxii. 18. 

Kal ivev\oyif}67]ffovTai. ev rip 
ffTrep/juzTi crov irdvra ra. tQvt] 
rrjs yrjs. 

And in thy seed shall all 
the nations of the earth be 



(201.) Is. liv. 1. 

EvcppdvdrjTi crreTpa r) ov tik- 
rovcra, pri£ov Kal JS6t\(Tov t] ovk 
hiSiyovffa, '6tl iroWa ra reKva 
ttjs eprtfiov pahAov fj ttjs ix°'' ) ' 
o-r\s rbv &vSpa. 



Rejoice, thou barren that 
bearest not; break forth and 
cry, thou that dost not tra- 
vail ; for more are the children 
of the desolate than of her 
that has a husband. 



(202.) Gen. xxi. 10. 

"EK/3aAe tt)v, ttcuSictktjs' Tav- 
ttjj' Kal rbv vlbv outtjs" ov yap 

U7J K\7ip0V0/J.T]aeL 6 vlbs T7JS 

7raf5«r/cTjy ravrrjs piera rov 
vlov fxov 'IcraaK. 

Cast out this bondwoman 
and her son, for the son 
of this bondwoman shall 
not inherit with my son 
Isaac. 



Gal. iii. 16. 

[Ou Xeyei •] Kal ro?s airip- 
piao-iv, [<£>s 6tt2 ttoWwv, a\\' 
ws icp' evbs~\ Kal Tcp aveppLari 
aov, [3s icrnv xpitTTds."] 

[He saith not,] And to 



Gen. xxii. 18. 

V.in ba *jjn : t'3 wnajpci) 

And in thy seed shall all 



s, [as of many; but as of the nations of the earth be 
one], And to thy seed [which blessed, 
is Christ.] 



Gal. iv. 27. 
[Viypairrai ydp-~] Evcppdv- 
8rjTi aretpa tj ov TiKTOvaa, 
prj^ov Kal jSo'tjow f] ovk wSi- 
vovffa, otl TroAAa Ta reKva ttjs 
tpy/jLOv juaAAo^ ij ttjs ex 0V<jr i 5 
rbv avbpa. 

[For it is written,] Ee- 
joice, thou barren, that bear- 
est not; break forth and cry, 
thou that travailest not : for 
the desolate hath many more 
children than she which hath 
an husband. 



Gal. iv. 30. 

[Ti Xeyei tj ypa<p7) ;] "Ek- 
6a\e tV TratSiaKrjv Kal rbv 
vlbv avrrjs- ov yap per) KKrjpo- 
vopL-i]o-£i b vlbs ttjs ■Kai5iaK7]S 
/uLerd rov vlov ttjs eAevOepas. 

[What saith the scripture ?] 
Cast out the bondwoman and 
her son: for the son of the 
bondwoman shall not be heir 
with the son of the free- 
woman. 



Is. liv. 1. 

••nys nn'r; i6 rn^y. ^"j 

*a|» n»£i&r»33 mi 

} nbm 

Sing, O barren, thou that 
didst not bear ; break forth 
into singing, and cry aloud, 
thou that didst not travail 
with child : for more are the 
children of the desolate, than 
the children of the married 
wife. 

Gen. xxi. 10. 

~m\ nwn nvitr} tjha 
: povroj? *W"Dy riN'-rn 

Cast out this bondwoman 
and her son : for the son of 
this bondwoman shall not be 
heir with my son, even with 
Isaac. 



199 These words are quoted freely after the Septuagint. 
retains tras, which was inserted by the Greek translator. 

202 This is borrowed from the LXX. with some alterations 
ravTT]s are omitted; and for plov 'Io-cwk is put ttjs iAevOipas. 



The apostle omits virb Qtov, but 
The pronouns Tavrrjv and 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



161 



(203.) Lev. xix. 18. 

Kcu aycurrjcrets tov •kXtjcfiov 
aov as aeavTov. 

And thou shalt love thy 
neighbour as thy self. 

(204.) Ps. lxvii. 19. 

'Ava€as els ityos fjXV-a.'Xu- 
Tevaas cux l uctAct>criai' eXaSes 
06/j.a.Ta ev avdpdnrw. 

Thou art gone up on high, 
thou hast led a multitude of 
prisoners captive, thou hast 
received gifts for men. 



(205.) 



(206.) Gen. ii. 24. 

"EveKev tovtov KaraXetyei 
ilvBpwKos tov izaTepa avTov 
Kal t)]V jxr/Tepa, Kal irpoaKoK- 
\i)M]aeTai 7r P* >s T V ywdiKa 
avTov. Kal eaovTai ol Svo els 
aapKa jxlav. 

Therefore shall a man 



Gal. v. 14. 

['Ey t<5 •] 'Ayairriaeis tov 
TrXrjaiov aov ws aeavTov. 

[In this,] Thou shalt love 
thy neighbour as thyself. 

Eph. iv. 8. 
[Aib \eyei •] 'AvaSas els 
tyos j;XMC , AajTei'0-€J / alx/^aAoi- 
alav, eSuKev 86/j.a.Ta to7s av- 

6pd>TT0tS. 

[Wherefore he saith,] 
"When he ascended up on 
high, he led captivity cap- 
tive, and gave gifts unto 
men. 

Eph. v. 14. 

[Aib Xeyei •] "Eyetpe 6 Ka- 
Bevoaiv Kal avdcrra eK twv 
veKpuiv, Kal eirupavaei aoi 6 
Xpivrds. 

[Wherefore he saith,] 
Awake, thou that sleepest, 
and arise from the dead, and 
Christ shall give thee light. 

Eph. v. 31. 
'AvtI tovtov KaTaXetyei. h\v- 
OpuTros irarepa Kal /xr/Tepa Kal 
7rpo<TJcoA\7)0T7(76To[ T?7 yvvawl 
avTov. kcu eaovTai ol Svo els 
adpKa fxlav. 

For this cause shall a man 



Lev. xix. 18. 
5"fl03 "]V"h $33^1 

But thou shalt love thy 
neighbour as thyself. 

Ps. lxviii. 18. 

•Of rp2t£> Dhi*fe n^y 
: ansa niano &xp}? r 

Thou hast ascended on 
high, thou hast led captivity 
captive: thou hast received 
gifts for men. 



Gen. ii. 24. 

Therefore shall a man 



201 This is a free citation from the LXX. of Psal. lxviii. 18 The LXX. agree with the 
original Hebrew, but the apostle differs widely from both. It is of no consequence that he 
changes the person, for the purpose of incorporating the quotation with his subject. But 
instead of " thou hast received gifts among men," e\a§es — ev avdpunrois, Paul has " gave 
gifts to men," eSaiKe to?s avdpdnrois. This too is the most important clause, that in which 
the strength of the apostle's illustration lies. We can only state our -view of the quotation 
in the briefest manner, referring to such commentators as J)e Wette on the New Testa- 
ment and Hengstenberg on the Psalms, for copious remarks. 

First, The apostle does not use the Psalm-passage as if it contained a direct prophecy 
respecting Christ. Neither does he find in it a typical prophecy of Christ. Had either 
been the case, he would not have taken such liberty in altering the words. 

Secondly, The apostle uses the passage in the same way as many others, for example 
Pom. x. 1, 8., as a vehicle for his own ideas, in the way of accommodation. It is used for 
illustration, not for proof. If this be so, he is warranted in changing the words to suit his 
purpose, which, in another case, he would scarcely be. Hence there is no necessity for 
investigating the historical circumstances and subject of the Psalm. Those who believe 
that the apostle quotes from it in its true and proper meaning, sadly twist the words of 
Paul to bring them into accordance with the original. See for example the perverted 
exegesis of Eadie. It is no valid objection to our view that the apostle reasons upon the words 
in the following verses, because in applying ascended to Christ, on which verb the stress is 
laid, he only takes for granted what the Jews and all acquainted with the Old Testament 
acknowledged, viz. that the manifestations of God in the ancient economy were manifesta- 
tions of the Word or Memra. 

205 This passage can scarcely be considered a quotation. Some have thought that it was 
taken from an apocryphal writing of Elias, or a similar composition of Jeremiah ; others 
that it was borrowed* from a Christian hymn. It is probably based upon Isa. lx. 1., but 
the language differs much from the Septuagint. 
VOL. II. M 



162 



Biblical Criticism. 



leave his father and his leave his father and mother, leave his father and his mo- 
mother and shall cleave to and shall be joined unto his ther, and shall cleave unto 
his wife, and they two shall wife, and they two shall be his wife ; and they shall be 
be one flesh. one flesh. one flesh. 



(207.) Ex. xx. 12. (Deut. 
v. 16.) 
Tijiia rbv irarepa crov Kal 
TtjV Lirirepa crov, 'tva ev ffoi ye~ 
vrjTai, Kal '(pa /xaicpoxpovios 
j4vri eivl rrjs yrjs. 

Honour thy father and 
mother that it may be well 
with thee, and that thou 
mayest live long on the land. 



Eph. vi. 2, 3. 

Ti/xa rbv irarepa crov Kal 
t\v jUTj-repa, [rjTis earlp epTO- 
At/ irpu>T7) ev eirayyeAiq,'] 'Iva 
ev croi yevrjTat Kal eery fxaKpo- 
XpSvios etrl rrjs yys. 

Honour thy father and mo- 
ther, [which is the first com- 
mandment with promise,] 
That it maybe well with thee, 
and thou mayest live long on 
the earth. 



Ex. xx. 12. (Deut. v. 16.) 

Honour thy father and thy 
mother ; that thy days may 
be long upon the land. 



(208.) Deut. xxv. 4. 

Ou (pij-iiiaeis Bovv aAotovra. 

Thou shalt not muzzle the 
ox that treads out the corn. 



1 Tim. v. 18. 
[Aeyei yap r/ ypaty-f)'"] Ov 
(pifxuaeis @ovp aXowpra. 

[For the scripture saith,] 
thou shalt not muzzle the ox 
that treadeth out the corn. 



Deut. xxv. 4. 

:iK>H? nit? Dbrirr&6 

Thou shalt not muzzle 
the ox when he treadeth out 
the corn. 



2 Tim. ii. 19. Num. xvi. 5. 

"Eyvw iciipios robs ovras av- • ip'I^XTl^ 'HIPP 17*1^1 



(209.) Num. xvi. 5. 

Kal eyvca 6 &ebs robs opras 

aVTOV. tov. 

God has known them that The Lord knoweth them The Lord will shew who 
are his. that are his. are his. 



(210.) Ps. ii. 7, and 2 Bangs 
vii. 14. 
Yl6s fJLOv el ab, eyiii o-r)jxepov 
yey epprjKa cre. — 'Eycii eaofxai 
avrcd els Trarepa Kal avTos ecr- 
Tat fj.oi els vl6v. 

Thou art my Son, to-day 
have I begotten thee. — I 
will be to him a father, and 
he shall be to me a son. 



Heb. i. 5. 

[Tivi yap elwep — ■ '] Tl6s 
(jlov el av, eyco ar^xepop yeyep- 
vr\K<i <re ; [/cat naAiu"] 'Eyw 
effo/xai avT<2 els -narepa, Kal 
avrbs eorai /jloi els vl6v. 

[For unto which . . . said 
he,] Thou art my Son, this 
day have I begotten thee, 
[and again,] I will be to him 
a Father, and he shall be to 
me a Son. 



Ps. ii. 7., and 2 Sam. vii. 14. 

Thou art my son ; this 
clay have I begotten thee. — 
I will be his father, and he 
shall be my son. 



(211.) Ps. xcvi. 7. 

TlpoaKvvricraTe avry iravres 
IxyyeAoi avTov. 

Worship him, all ye his 
angels. 



Heb. i. 6. 
[A€7«i •] Kal ■npoffKvvrjcrd- 
Toxrav amy iravTes &yye\oi 
Seov. 

[He saith,] And let all 
the angels of God worship 
him. 



Ps. xcvii. 7. 
Worship him, all ye gods. 



207 This quotation may be either from Exod. xx. 12. or Deut. v. 16. 

211 This quotation is from Psal. xcvi. 7. in the Septuagint, not from Deut. xxxii. 43. 
In the latter place there is nothing corresponding to it in the Hebrew. The Alexandrine 
recension of the LXX., which the apostle used, has there viol Ceo?; instead of ayyekoi 9eov. 
The Hebrew word elohim never denotes angels, as Gesenius and Hengstenberg both allow; 
so that the New Testament writer must have had both passages of the LXX. in his mind 
and mixed them up together. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



163 



(212.) Ps. ciii. 4. 

'O irotwv tovs ayyeAovs av- 
rov irvevfxara, Kal tovs Aei- 
rovpyobs avrou nvp <pAeyov. 

Who makes his angels 
spirits, and his ministers a 
flaming fire. 



Heb. i. 7. Ps. civ. 4. 

[Ae-yef] 'O iroiwv tovs ay- fiirm V3J^?» PlEty 
yeAovs avrou nveufxara Kal . " . 

tovs Aetroupyobs avrou irvpbs ♦ t^H? £J*NI Vfl'l^'D 

[He saith,] Who maketh Who maketh his angels 
his angels spirits, and his spirits ; his ministers a flam- 
ministers a flame of fire. ing fire. 



(213.) Ps. xliv. 7, 8. 

'O &p6vos ffov, 6 &ebs, els 
alwva alwvos, pdffSos evdvrrjros 
7] pd§Sos rrjs fiacriAeias ffov. 
7]ya.-Ki)o-as SiKaioffvvriv Kal e- 
/xlcr^ffas avofiiav. Sia. rovro 
expire o-e 6 Subs 6 Sreos crov 
eAaiov ayaAAtdffews -napa robs 
fieroxovs ffov. 

Thy throne, God, is for 
ever and ever ; the sceptre 
of thy kingdom is a scep- 
tre of righteousness. Thou 
hast loved righteousness, and 
hated iniquity : therefore God, 
thy God, has anointed thee 
with the oil of gladness be- 
yond thy fellows. 



Heb. i. 8, 9. 
[Upbs Se rbv vlov •] 'O &p6- 
vos ffov, 6 Srebs, els rbv alwva 
rod alwvos, Kal pd§Sos ttjs ei)- 
6vt7]tos pdSSos TTJs fiaffiAeias 
ffov. Tjydmjcras SiKaioffuvrjv Kal 
4/j.iffTjffas avofiiav ' Sia. rovro 
expiffev ere, 6 &ebs, 6 &e6s ffov 
eAaiov ayaAAidffews irapa tovs 
fierSxovs ffov. 

[But unto the Son, [he 
saith,]] Thy throne, God, 
is for ever and ever : a 
sceptre of righteousness is 
the sceptre of thy kingdom ; 
Thou hast loved righteous- 
ness, and hated iniquity ; 
therefore God, even thy God, 
has anointed thee with the 
oil of gladness above thy 
fellows. 



Ps. xlv. 6, 7. 

: *fttiV& tan^ I'^p 1336? 
^0% wrbx s\n&Q p 

Thy throne, O God, is for 
ever and ever: the sceptre of 
thy kingdom is a right scep- 
tre. Thou lovest righteous- 
ness, and hatest wickedness: 
therefore God, thy God, hath 
anointed thee with the oil of 
gladness above thy fellows. 



(214.) Ps. ci. 26, &c. 

KaT apxas ttjv yy\v ffb kv- 
pie eOefieAlwcras, /cat epya rwv 
Xeipwv ffov elfflv ol ovpavoi. 
avTol anoAouvrai , ffb Se Siafie- 
veis. Kal rravres ws Ifidrtov 
iraAaiwdi'iffovrai, ical wffel ire- 
pifioAaiov eAi^eis avrovs Kal 
aAAayriffovrai. ffb Se 6 aurbs 
el, Kal to, eri] ffov ovk in\ei- 
■tyovffiv. 

In the beginning thou, O 
Lord, didst lay the founda- 
tion of the earth ; and the 
heavens are the works of 
thine hands. They shall 
perish, but thou remainest : 
and they all shall wax old 
as a garment ; and as a ves- 
ture shalt thou fold them, 
and they shall be changed. 
But thou art the same, and 
thy years shall not fail. 



Heb. i. 10, &c. 
[Kar] 2i> KaT apxas, Kvpie, 
tV yrjv eOefieAiwffas, Kal epya 
twv x tl P^ v °~ ov tifflv ol ovpa- 
voi • aurol atroAouvrai, o~x> Se 
Siafievets ' Kal irdvres ws Ifxd- 
riov iraAaiwdi)ffovTai, Kal wffel 
trepi€oAawv eAi^eis avrovs, ws 
i/xdnov, Kal aAAayriffovrai' <jv 
Se u avrbs el, ical to. err] ffov 
ovk eKAetyouffiv. 

[And,] Thou, Lord, in 
the beginning hast laid the 
foundation of the earth ; and 
the heavens are the works of 
thine hands. They shall 
perish ; but thou remainest : 
and they all shall wax old 
as doth a garment ; and as 
a vesture shalt thou fold 
them up, and they shall be 
changed; but thou art the 
same, and thy years shall not 
fail. 



Ps. cii. 26. (25.) &c. 

'ipp\ p.^o a ')& 

ctai Yojft r\m\ -n3N> 
Da^qn m^ 6^. 1333 
ytinw tan mx\ : -isSnn. 

Of old hast, thou laid the 
foundation of the earth; and 
the heavens are the work of 
thy hands. They shall perish, 
but thou shalt endure ; yea, 
all of them shall wax old 
like a garment: as a vesture 
shalt thou change them, and 
they shall be changed : But 
thou art the same, and thy 
years shall have no end. 



\ 



314 This quotation is taken from the Septuagint which agrees very nearly with the He- 
brew. Instead of ep?D0 the Cod. Vat. of the LXX. has !Af|« s which is inaccurate, though 
the writer of the Epistle follows it. The Alex. Cod. has aAAd^ets, which is in D. and the 
Vulgate, and is certainly conformable to the original, but it is not the true reading in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. There is not the least probability that the original readme both 
in the Psalm and this Epistle was aA\d£eis. 



164 



Biblical Criticism. 



(215.) Ps. cix. 1. 

Kadov iic Se^wv fxov eois av 
Siw rods ixdpous aov vttottoolov 
ruv ttoSuv aov. 

Sit thou on my right hand, 
until I make thine enemies 
thy footstool. 



(216.) Ps. viii. 5. 

Ti eariv dvOpwiros, on fxijx- 
vfiaKri avrov, ?) vibs dvQpunrov 
'6n iiriaKSTTT'p avrbv ; TjAdrroo- 
aas avrbv (ipaxv n Trap 1 dy- 
y4\ovs, Soty Kal rifj.rj earecpd- 
vccaas avrbv, Kal Kar4ari)aas 
avrbv 4nl ra, epya rwv x* l P& v 
aov • irdvra vw4ra£as imoKdrw 
ruv iroficcv avrov. 



What is man, that thou 
art mindful of him? or the 
son of man, that thou visitest 
him? Thou madest him a 
little less than angels, thou 
hast crowned him with glory 
and honour ; and thou set 
him over the works of thy 
hands. Thou hast put all 
things in subjection under 
his feet. 



Heb. i. 13. 

[E'/joTj/ceV 7T0T6 •] Kadov 4k 5f- 
|ic5v fj.ov ews av&w rovs exSpovs 
aov vwoTrdoiov ra>v ttoSuv aov ; 

[Said he at any time,] Sit 
on my right hand, untill I 
make thine enemies thy foot- 
stool. 

Heb. ii. 6, &c. 

[_Ate/xaprvparo 54 ttov tis 
\4ycav ] Ti eanv dvQpomos, 
on fxifxvrjaKri avrov, t) vlbs dv- 
Opwirov, on emaKtTTTr) avr6v ; 
i)Aarrooaas avrbv fipaxv n 
Trap' dyye\ovs, 5o'|?7 Kal rifxrj 
4are<pdvaiaas avrbv, \koI Ka- 
r4arr)aas avrbv iirl rd epya 
rHv x* l P& v °~ ov >] '"'dvra vw4- 
ra£as viroKaru ruv iroddiv 
avrov. 

[But one in a certain place 
testified, saying] What is 
man that thou art mindful of 
him? or the son of man, that 
thou visitest him ? Thou mad- 
est him a little lower than the 
angels ; thou crownedst him 
with glory and honour, [and 
didst set him over the works 
of thy hands.] Thou hast 
put all things in subjection 
under his feet. 



Ps. ex. 1. 

Sit thou at my right hand, 
until I make thine enemies 
thy footstool. 

Ps. viii. 5. (4.) &c. 

*b>y»3 -inWpjn : irot^fl 



What is man, that thou 
art mindful of him ? and the 
son of man, that thou visit- 
est him ? For thou hast 
made him a little lower than 
the angels, and hast crowned 
him with glory and honour. 
Thou madest him to have 
dominion over the works of 
thy hands ; thou hast put all 
things under his feet. 



(217.) Ps. xxi. 23. 

Ai7iyi)<rofxai rb ovo\id aov 
toTs a5e\(po'is fxov, 4v /x4au> 4k- 
Kto)aias ifxvi)au> ae. 

I will declare thy name to 
my brethren ; in the midst of 
the church I will sing praise 
to thee. 



Heb. ii. 12. 
[A4ywv •] 'AwayyeAco rb 
uvo/j.d aov ro7s aSeA(po7s /aov, 
4v /x4aco zKK\T]aias vp.vi)au ae. 

[Saying,] I will declare 
thy name unto my brethren, 
in the midst of the Church 
will I sing praise unto thee. 



Ps. xxii. 23. (22.) 

^in? >n$\ ?jt?K> rnsDg 

I will declare thy name 
unto my brethren : in the 
midst of the congregation 
will I praise thee. 



(218.) Is. viii. 17, 18. 

Kal Treiroidiiis iaop.ai 4tt' 
amy. loov 4yw Kal rd 7reu8ia 
a /j.oi eSwKev 6 8e6s. 

And I will trust in him. 
Behold I and the children 
which God has given me. 



(219.) Ps. xciv. 7., &c. 



Heb. ii. 12, 1?. 

[Kal TrdAiv •] 'Eyd* eao/xai 
ireTroideos eV ahrcp. [_Kal wd- 
Aiv'] 'loov 4ya> Kal ra TraiSia a 
/uoi eSooKiv 6 Oeos. 

[And again,] I will put 
my trust in him. [And 
again,] Behold, I, and the 
children which God hath 
given me. 



Is. viii. 17, 18. 

And I will look for him. 
Behold I and the children 
whom the Lord hath given 



Heb. iii. 7., &c. 

^fxepov 4av rrjs (poovrjs av- [Kadws \4ya r irv€vf/.a rb 

rov aKovarire, /j.tj aKKripvvrjre ayiov] '2i)/j.epov, idv ttjs (pavjjs 

rds KapSlas vfj.S>v,ws iv rm Tra- avrov aKovarjre, /xtj aKXrjpv- 

pairMpaajxw. Kara r\]v i]/x4pav vt]Tt t«j KapSias vfwv Sis iv 

rov TTiKpaoixov 4v ryj eprnxcp • o5 rQ Trapa-KiKpaaixS Kara r))V 

eTeipaadv fie ol irarepes vjaccv, ri/xepav rov ireipaafxov 4v rrj 

iSoKifJ-aaav, Kal db~ov ra epya ip-iiucp, ov iweipaaav oliro.T4pes "Q3 ^-IjnS D3 H JD12X *>1DJ. 



Ps. xcv. 7, &C. 
l^tS J131S3 HDO DV3 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



165 



fxov. reaffapaKOvra err} Ttpoa- 
ctix6«ra rfj yevea eKeiin/, Kal 
eTira 'A el irAavcivrat rfj KapSia, 
Kal avrol ovk eyvwcrav ras o- 
Sovs fj-ov ' ws Hifxocra iv rfj opyfj 
/j.ou El elcreXevaovrai els tV 
Kardiruvcriv fiov. 



To-day if ye will hear 
his voice, harden not your 
hearts ; as in the provocation, 
according to the day of irri- 
tation in the wilderness : 
where your fathers tempted 
me, proved me and saw my 
works. Forty years was I 
grieved with this generation, 
and said, They do always 
err in their heart, and they 
have not known my ways. 
So I swore in my wrath, 
They shall not enter into my 
rest. 



vfxSiv iv SoKt/xaaia Kal elSov tr 
%pya fiou recrcrapaKovra ert\. 
Sib Trpocrci>x8i-0'a rfj yevea rainy 
Kal elira 'Ael ir\av£>vrai rfj 
KapSia ' avrol Se ovk eyvwaav 
ras dSovs fJ.ov, ws io^otra iv rfj 
opyfj fxov Ei elae\evcrovrai els 
tV Kurairavtriv fiov. 

[As the Holy Ghost saith,] 
To-day if ye will hear his 
voice, Harden not your hearts, 
as in the provocation, in the 
day of temptation in the 
wilderness: When your fa- 
thers tempted me, proved me, 
and saw my works forty 
years. Wherefore I was 
grieved with that generation, 
and said, They do always 
err in their heart ; and they 
have not known my ways. So 
I sware in my wrath, They 
shall not enter into my rest. 



»yn dj? i»Vo in? ta-ipx 

To-day, if ye will hear his 
voice, harden not your heart, 
as in the provocation, and as 
in the day of temptation in 
the wilderness ; when your 
fathers tempted me, proved 
me, and saw my work. Forty 
years long was I grieved with 
this generation, and said, It 
is a people that do err in 
their heart, and they have 
not known my ways. Unto 
whom I sware in my wrath 
that they should not enter 
into my rest. 



(220.) Ps. xciv. 8. 

~2,7]fiepov iav rrjs cpoivrjs av- 
rov a.Kovo-r]Te, /xtj crK\r]pvv7)re 
ras KapSlas vjj.S>v, ois iv rep 
irapaTriKpaffixy. 

To-day if ye will hear 
his voice, harden not your 
hearts ; as in the provocation. 



Heb. hi. 15. 
['Ef rqi \eyea9ai] ^[xepov, 
iau rr/s cpwvris avrov aKovffi)re, 
frq ffKXripvvqre ras KapSias v- 
fj.Cov us iv raj KarainKpaafxa. 



[While it is said,] To-day 
if ye will hear his voice, 
harden not your hearts, as 
in the provocation. 



Ps. xcv. 7, 8. 

: HDD DV3 

To-day if ye will hear his 
voice, harden not your heart, 
as in the provocation. 



(321.) Ps. xciv. 11. 

'Cls Hfjcoaa iv rfj opyfj fxov 
E( elcre\evcrovrai els rr)v Kard- 
icavalv nov. 

So I swore in my wrath, 
They shall not enter into 
my rest. 



Heb. iv. 3. Ps. xcv. 11. 

[Ka0ois efyTjKev] 'fly &fiocra "DX ^SKl *J$}i!#)~T$l& 
iv rfj opyfj /xov Et elo-eXev- § ' ' . 

aovrai els ryv Kara-rava'tv fj.ov. • nn-iJlp Ps> [-l^J. 

[As he said.] As I have Unto whom I sware in my 

sworn in my wrath, if they wrath that they should not 

shall enter into my rest. enter into my rest. 



(222.) Gen. ii. 3. 

Kal ev\6yTjaev 6 8ebs tV V- 
fj.epav tV i§S6fir]v Kal rjyiacrev 
avrr\v on ev aiirrj Kareiravcrev, 
curb irdvrccv rSiv epywv avrov, 
uv %p£aro 6 6ebs 7roi7jcrai. 



And God blessed the 
seventh day, and sanctified 
it, because in it he ceased 
from all his works which he 
made. 



Heb. iv. 4. 

[E'i'ptjKev yap rrov — •] Kal 
Kareiravcrev b debs iv rfj riyLepa. 
rfj e€S6/j.T] curb irdvruv rwv ep* 
ycov avrov. 



[For he spake in a cer- 
tain place . . .,] And God did 
rest the seventh day from all 
his works. 



Gen. ii. 3. 

D'r-r-ix twjHs yygi 

And God blessed the 
seventh day, and sanctified 
it; because that in it he had 
rested from all his work 
which God created and 



This is from the Greek, with some slight changes. 
M 3 



166 



Biblical Criticism. 



(223.) Ps. xciv. 8. 

~Zi]^.epov iav rrjs (pojvrjs av- 
tov aKoixrriTe, fxrj o~KKr]pi!vr]re 
ras KapS'ias v/j.&v. 

To-day if ye will hear his 
voice, harden not your hearts. 



Heb. iv. 7. 

[Ka9ws -wpoe'ip-qrai •] Sr/^e- 
pov, iav rrjs (poovr/s avrov olkov- 
<rr)T<s, fx)) (TK\r\pvvr)re ras Kap- 
Sias vjxSiv. 

[As it is said before,] To- 
day, if ye will hear his voice, 
harden not your hearts. 



Ps. xcv. 7, 8. 

: rnn$? D35^? rc^Erte 

To-day if ye will hear his 
voice, harden not your heart 
as in the provocation. 



(224.) Ps. ii. 7. 

Vl6s fxov el (TV, iyk o-fj/xepov 
yeyevvr]Ka <re. 

Thou art my Son, to-day 
have I begotten thee. 



(225.) Ps. cix. 4. 

~Zv lepevs els rbv aloova Kara 



Heb. v. 5. 

['O \a\T]ffas irpbs aiirdv •] 
Tl6s p.ov ej ah, eyh o-fifj.epov 
yeyevvrjKa o~e. 

[But he said unto him,] 
Thou art my Son, to-day 
have I begotten thee. 



Ps. iii. 7. 

Thou art my Son, this day 
have I begotten thee. 



Heb. v. 6 . Ps. ex. 4. 

[Ka0is Kal ivtre-p? TJyet ] i'n^l bv tk'tyb \Zp"i]R$ 
3u lepevs eis rbv al&va Kara T ■ 

ri^v rd£iv MeAY,«re56/c. 



: p^T^bp 



Thou art a priest for ever, [As he saith also in ano- Thou art a priest for ever 

after the order of Melchi- ther place,] Thou art a priest after the order of Melchize- 

sedec. for ever after the order of dek. 

Melchisedec. 



(226.) Gen.xxii. 16, 17. Heb. vi. 13, 14. 

Aeyccv, Kar e^avrov &p.oaa, ['0 6ehs &/xoo~ev Ka6' eavrov, 

Xeyet Kvpios ' 'q p.j]V evXoySiv heyeev"] E( p.r)v evXoywv evXo- 

eb\oyi)(T(a ere, Kal ir\i)Qvvow yrtirm ae Kal ir\T)6vvoov 7tAtj0u- 

ir\r]dvvu> rb 0-itepp.a aov. vQ ere. 



Saying, I have sworn by [God sware by himself, 

myself, saith the Lord. — saying,] Surely blessing I 

Surely blessing I will bless will bless thee, and multi- 

thee, and multiplying I will plying I will multiply thee, 
multiply thy seed. 



Gen. xxii. 16, 17. 

riin.b) ^afc? TO" 1 ? 

By myself have I sworn, 
saith the Lord — That in 
blessing I will bless the%, 
and in multiplying I will 
multiply thy seed. 



(227.) Ps. cix. 4. 

"£lp.ocre Kvpios Kal ov Liera- 
fj.e\7]8-fio~erai 2i> lepevs els rbv 
alSiva Kara. ri}v ra\iv MeAx'- 
aeoiic. 



The Lord swore and will 
not repent, Thou art a priest 
for ever, after the order of 
Melchisedec. 



Heb. vii. 17, 21. 
[Maprvpe7rai yap] '6ri crb 
lepevs els rbv alwva Kara. rr\v 
ra\iv MeXX'O-eSeK. — [Aia rod 
Xeyovros irpbs avrdv.] "Clfiocrev 
Kvptos, Kal ov LLerafj.e\7]Qr]ffe- 
rai, aii lepevs els rbv alwva 
Kara, ri\v rd^iv MeAxf<re5e/c. 

[For he testified,] Thou 
art a priest for ever after the 
order of Melchisedec. [With 

that said unto him,] 

The Lord sware and will not 
repent, Thou art a priest for 
ever after the order of Mel- 
chisedec. 



Ps. ex. 4. 



The Lord hath sworn, and 
will not repent, Thou art a 
priest for ever after the order 
of Melchizedek. 



(228.) Ex. xxv. 40. Heb. viii. 5. 

"Opa iToirjaeis Kara rbv rv- [K<x0d>s KexpriP-driffraL Mcov- 

itov rbv Seoeiyfievov aoi iv r$ arjs •] "Opa yap [(£>?7<ni',] ttoi- 
ipet. ijffeis irdvra Kara rbv rvirov 

rbv SeixQevra cot iv r$ opei. 



Ex. xxv. 40. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



167 



Sec, thou shalt make them [As Moses was admo 



And look that thou make 



rding to the pattern monished,] For, See [saith them after their pattern, which 



shewed thee in the mount, 



he] that thou make all things was shewed thee in the 
according to the pattern mount, 
shewed to thee in the 
mount 



(229.) Jer.xxxviii. 31, &c. 

'lSov 71/J.epai epxovrcu, <prjal 
Kvptos, Kal SiadriLTOLiat raj oIkco 
'l/rparjA Kal rw oXkco 'lovSa Sia- 
6tjkt]v Kaivijv, oil Kara. ryv Sia- 
67IKTJV %v 8ie6ffM]v rots irarpd- 
trtv abrSiv, iv 7]fJt.epa emXa§o- 

/XeVOV fXOV T7/S X et P 0S aVTU'V 

e^ayayelv avrovs etc yr/s Ai- 
yxmrov, '6tl aiiTol ovk ivepei- 
vav h> t?7 SiadrjKTi p.ov, Kal eyco 
7]fj.s\T]<ra abruv, (prjal Kvptos ' 
on avrrj r) Siadr]Kri uov, V Sia- 
6i]aop.ai. rcy oXkoi 'lapayX Mera. 
rds ijfiipas eKeivas, (p-qcrl Kvptos, 
oiSovs $wo~w voliovs jxov els rr\v 
Sidvoiav avroov, Kal evl Kapdias 
abrwv ypdipai avrovs, Kal etro- 
fxai avrois els Oebv Kal avrol 
ecrovrai lloi els \a6v. Kal ob /u?) 
SiSd^wcriv eKaffTos rbv iroXirr}v 
abrov Kal eicaaros rbv doeA- 
<pbv avrov, Xeyaiv Tvuidi rbv 
Kuptov • '6ri Trdvres elSricroval 
fj.e airb fiiKpov a'vrcvv ecos fxe- 
ydXov abrSiv, '6ri "Xecos eao/xai 
Ta?s aSiKtais abrtvv Kal rwv 
hfxapriSiv avroov ob p; llvt)o-Qu> 



Heb. viii. 8., &c. 
[Ae'7sc] 'l5oi/ i)Liepai ep- 
Xovrai, Xeyei Kvptos, Kal crvv- 
reXeaai eirl rbv oIkov 'lo-parjX 
Kal eirl rbv oIkov 'JouSa SiafWj- 
ktjv Kaifi]v, ob Kara. r))v b~La6ri- 
Ki\v %v eno'iycra rdls ■Karpdcriv 
avricv ev y/J-epa eiriXa§o,uevov 
fjtov ttjs X et P 0S avroov, e£aya- 
yelv avrovs e/c yris Aiyvirrov, 
'6ri avrol ovk evef.Lei.vav iv rfj 
5ta6-)iKri liov, Kayib r/LoeXrio-a 
avroov, Xeyet Kvpios. on av- 
T7j 7] SiafWi/a; \_p.ov~\ %v 5ia6rj- 
LTOLiat rop o'iKQi 'lrrpayX fxeTa. 
rds rjixepas eKeivas, Xeyei kij- 
pios, SlSovs voijlovs fiov els t?;«/ 
Sidvotav avruv, i<al ewl Kapdlas 
avriiv eiriypdtya} avrovs, Kal 
eo-op:ai avro7s els Qebv, Kal av- 
rol effovrai fioi els Xa6v. Kal 
ov fX7] SiSd^coffLV eKaaros rbv 
TToXirr]v avrov Kal eicao-ros rbv 
aSeXcpbv avrov, Xeywv Tv<S8l 
rbv Kvpwv, on. irdvres elSriaov- 
o~iv Lie airb jxiKpov ews p.eya- 
Xov avraiv, on 'Ixews Zaoiiai 
rals dSih-i'ais avraiv, Kal ru>v 
aLiapriwv avrcov Kal ruiv avo- 
p.iwv avrwv ov p.i] fivrjadai en. 



Behold, the days come, 
says the Lord, when I will 
make a new covenant with 
the house of Israel and with 
the house of Juda : not ac- 
cording to the covenant 



[He saith,] Behold, the 
days come, saith the Lord, 
when I will make a new co- 
venant with the house of 
Israel and with the house 
of Judah: Not according to 



Jer. xxxi. 31, &c. 

-dw n»K3 D»p; nsri 
Wipi JV3 - hg W51 n\n\ 
nn? nn-in; riTn^i 
i^k nnag iib : nt:h r n : 
DV3 ori'ns-ns ^? 

»? : mn?-DK3 on ^"?V3 
n'i38 ^8 rinan m» 

□sni?3 ^"iin-ns ^n; 

-iiy ?n?k\ 16) : tub ^ 
■ns ^ni •inyrnx &$ 

D^pP 1 ? ^nis* -1JJT. dV 13 *3 

x'^5 Drix?3nVi diiy!? rhm 
: niy"i3tx 

Behold, the days come, 
saith the Lord, that I will 
make a new covenant with 
the house of Israel, and with 
the house of Judah ; not ac- 
cording to the covenant that 






229 This long quotation is from the LXX., with a few unimportant verbal alterations that 
do not affect the meaning. The Hebrew agrees with the LXX., except in one clause 
which is apparently very different, viz. D3 ''FQVZ, rendered Kayu rjixeX-qo-a avraiv. This is 
translated in the English version, " although I was an husband unto them." There is no 
reason for supposing with Randolph and others that the Hebrew was different, such as 
>j-|Ljy«l which Cappellus conjectures to have been the word. All such conjectures are gra- 
tuitous. Joseph Kimchi and others after him explain the Hebrew by the Arabic, " and I 
rejected them," a sense which is expressed in a mild form by the V^o"a of the LXX. 
But this can hardly be sustained. The most natural interpretation is, " I ruled over 
them." This is favoured by the LXX., in Jer. iii. 13., where the phrase also occurs. In 
the present instance, those translators, by using rifxex-rjo-a, missed the true sense. See 
Hitzig on Jeremiah. 

11 4 



168 



Biblical Criticism. 



which I made with their fa- 
thers in the day when I took 
hold of their hand to bring 
them out of the land of 
Egypt ; for they abode not 
in my covenant, and I dis- 
regarded them, says the Lord. 
For this is my covenant 
which I will make with the 
house of Israel ; after those 
days, says the Lord, I will 
surely put my laws into their 
mind ; and write them on 
their hearts; and I will be to 
them a God, and they shall 
be to me a people. And 
they shall not at all teach 
every one his fellow-citizen, 
and every one his brother, 
saying, Know the Lord : for all 
shall know me, from the least 
of them to the greatest of 
them : for I will be merciful 
to their iniquities, and their 
sins I will remember no more. 



the covenant that I made 
with their fathers, in the day 
when I took them by the 
hand to lead them out of the 
land of Egypt; because they 
continued not in my co- 
venant, and I regarded them 
not, saith the Lord, For this 
is the covenant that I will 
make with the house of 
Israel, after those days, saith 
the Lord; I will put my 
laws into their mind, and 
write them in their hearts : 
and I will be to them a God, 
and they shall be to me a 
people. And they shall not 
teach every man his neigh- 
bour, and every man his 
brother, saying, Know the 
Lord : for all shall know me, 
from the least to the greatest. 
For I will be merciful to 
their unrighteousness, and 
their sins and their iniqui- 
ties will I remember no 
more. 



I made with their fathers in 
the day that I took them by 
the hand to bring them out 
of the land of Egypt ; which 
my covenant they brake, al- 
though I was an husband 
unto them, saith the Lord. 
But this shall be the covenant 
that I will make with the 
house of Israel; After those 
days, saith the Lord, I will 
put my law in their inward 
parts, and write it in their 
hearts ; and will be their 
God, and they shall be my 
people. And they shall teach 
no more every man his neigh- 
bour, and every man his 
brother, saying, Know the 
Lord : for they shall all know 
me, from the least of them 
unto the greatest of them, 
saith the Lord : for I will 
forgive their iniquity, and I 
will remember their sin no 
more. 



(230.) Ex. xxiv. 8. 

'iBob Tb aT/xa tt)s 8ta6r]Kr)s 
ris dtedero Kvpws Trpbs v/j.us. 



Behold the blood of the 
covenant, which the Lord has 
made with you. 



Heb. ix. 20. 



Ex. xxiv. 8. 



^ [Ae70)v] ToDto to aT/xa fTlS »)#g Jl'iantl fifl.fi 
rrjs SiaOriKris ris evereiAaro 

wpbs iifias 6 6e6s. ♦ D!3)3JJ filil* 

[Saying,] This is the blood Behold the blood of the 

of the testament which God covenant, which the Lord 

hath enjoined unto you. hath made with you. 



(231.) Ps. xxxix. 7., &c. Heb. x. 5., &c. Ps. xl. 7, &c. 

©vaiav Ka\ Trpoucpopav ovk [Ae'yei •] Qvoiiav Kal irpo<r- fl¥5n N? HnjD-1 Pllt. 

T)Bi\T)<jas, crcc/j.a 5e Kar-rjpria-ia <popav ovk 7}6eAr)ffas , aoofxa 8k J t. / : 

fxoi ' bXoKavroifia Kal Trepl a- KaTrtpricrw /j.oi, oAoicavTw/xara '"I^Q! ""IP1J? V O^t ^f^ 

(j-aprias ovk iJT7]0'as' tSts eiirov kol irepl aiiapTias ovk TivSoicr)- 

'lSov tjku, eV KetpaAiSt /3i§Aiov o~as. tot<= elirov 'l5oy ijica («/ 



■fiSJVTOK tx :nW n^> 



231 This citation is from the LXX., with some variation. But the Hebrew widely differs, 
for instead of »? HT| D.'3t& " mine ears hast thou opened," the LXX. have 0-Z/j.a Se 
KaT-npricra lloi, " a body hast thou prepared for me." Some think that the Hebrew might 
be more properly rendered, "mine ears hast thou bored," an allusion being made to 
the custom mentioned in Exod. xxi. 6., but this cannot be sustained, because the verb em- 
ployed in Exodus is not that in the Psalm, and only one ear was pierced, not both, as 
the Psalm would imply from the use of the dual number. To open or uncover the 
ear was a customary expression among the Hebrews for "revealing," including the 
idea of listening to a communication, followed by prompt obedience. Hence the Greek 
phrase adopted by the writer of the Epistle is substantially equivalent to the Hebrew. 

Kennicott and others have here resorted to conjecture in the Hebrew text, supposing 
it to be corrupt in the word D.^t^, which was originally two, viz. T'K then, and >T)1 
a body. But none of the MSS. collated by Kennicott and De Piossi have a single various 
reading. The text as it stands must not be disturbed. It is quite correct. Neither must 
the Septuagint text be disturbed with De Wette, as if it had at first aria for a-a/ia, the lat- 
ter being a transcriber's mistake. Where some of Holmes's MSS. have aria, they have it 
by correction. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



yeypaTrrai rrepl e(j.ov, rod ■kol- Kecf>a\iSi /3t6\iov yiypairrai 

rjoai rb 64\r]/xd aov 6 6t6s fxov rrepl i/j.ov') rod Troirjtrai, 6 6e- 

i)§ov\r)d7}u, Kal rbv v6/jlou gov bs, rb ddAri/xd aov. 
iv fiiaca t?]s KapSias /xov. 



Sacrifice and offering thou 
wouldest not ; but a body 
hast thou prepared me : whole 
burnt-offering and sacrifice 
for sin thou didst not re- 
quire. Then I said, Behold, 
I come ; in the volume of the 
book it is written concerning 
me, I desired to do thy will, 
O my God, and thy law in 
the midst of mine heart. 



[He saith,] Sacrifice and 
offering thou wouldest not, 
but a body hast thou pre- 
pared me : In burnt-offer- 
ings and sacrifices for sin 
thou hast had no pleasure. 
Then said I, Lo, I come (in 
the volume of the book it is 
written of me) to do thy 
will, God. 



*nVs ^ixi.-nitj'y^ : ^ 
: n?p ^in? ^rniri? ^ivsri 

Sacrifice and offering thou 
didst not desire; mine ears 
hast thou opened : burnt 
offering and sin offering hast 
thou not required. Then 
said I, Lo, I come: in the 
volume of the book it is 
written of me: I delight to 
do thy will, O my God : yea 
thy law is within my heart. 



(232.) Jer. xxxviii. 33, 34. 

ASttj w Stadr)K7] /aov %v Sia- 
8r](T0fiaL ra> oIkco 'lapa^A Mera 
ras rj/xepas itceivas, <pr]al KV- 
piOS, SlSoilS SoiffW vo/xovs fxov 
els T7)u Sidvoiav avrwv, Kat £ttI 
KapSias avrciu ypdipcu avrovs, 
— Kal rmv afxapriuiv avrwv ov 
p.y /j-vrjaOco en. 



This is my covenant which 
I will make with the house 
of Israel ; after those days, 
says the Lord, I will surely 
put my laws into their mind, 
and write them on their 
hearts ; and their sins I will 
remember no more. 



Heb. x. 16, 17. 
[Mera yap rb elpyjicevai.'] 
Autt] ?; Sia8i)iai V oioi67iao/j.at 
irpbs avrovs /xera Tas r)fi4pas 
eKeivas, [Ae'yet Kvpios"] AiSovs 
vdfxovs fxuv eVi KapSias adrajv, 
Kal e7Ti T7JV Sidvota.v avrwv iiri- 
ypd^/w ajrobs, Kal rQv a,uap- 
tiwv avrwv Kal rwv dvofiicov 
avrwv ov )xri /j.V7]adr]o-o { uai ert. 

[For after that he had 
said,] This is the covenant 
that I will make with them 
after those days, [saith the 
Lord ;] I will put my laws 
into their hearts, and in 
their minds will I write 
them ; and their sins and 
iniquities will I remember 



Jer. xxxi. 33, 34. 

tDzb-hy) a?*)P5 win 

nfiyb rb.m *3 — ^|3p?^ 

t nijriats tb Drixan^i 

This shall be the covenant 
that I will make with the 
house of Israel; After those 
days, saith the Lord, I will 
put my law in their inward 
parts, and write it in their 
hearts: — For I will forgive 
their iniquity, and I will re- 
member their sin no more. 



(333.) Deut. xxxii. 35, 36. 

'Ev TjfjLtpa iKSiKi'jffecos avra- 
TtoSwcrw • "On Kpivei Kvpios 
rbv Aabv avrov. 



In the day of vengeance, 
I will recompense, — For the 
Lord shall judge his people. 



Heb. x. 30. 

[OlSa/xev yap rbv ennWa*] 
'Ejuoi eKo'iKT]o~is, eyw avratro- 
Swcrw, Ae'yei Kvpios • [«ol rrd- 
Xiv\ Kpivei Kvpios rbv Kabv 
avrov. 

[For we know him that 
hath said,] Vengeance be- 
longeth unto me, I will re- 
compense, saith the Lord. 
[And again] The Lord 
shall judge his people. 



Deut. xxxii. 35, 36. 



To me belongeth venge- 
ance and recompence. For 
the Lord shall judge his peo- 
ple. 



(234.) Hab. ii. 3, 4. 

"On epxafitvos 7)|ei Kal ov 



Heb. x. 37, 38. 

'O ipx6/J.evos -/Jfet Kal ov 



Hab. ii. 3, 4. 



- 34 This citation is from the Greek, with some alterations. The 1ST. T. writer has changed 
the order of the last two clauses, and put ixov after oiKatos, instead of Trio-revs. On com- 
paring the Septuagint with the Hebrew, there is a considerable difference between them, 
so that some have suspected a corruption of the latter, but without reason. The general 
meaning of both is the same, though it is tolerably clear that the Greek ti-anslator did not 
reach the exact sense of the Hebrew. 



170 



Biblical Criticism. 



/j.7] xpovlcrri. eav inrotTTelAr)TOU xP 0Vle ~^ <? Se SiKaids fJ.ov e'«: 

oiic svSoku fj tyvxh IJ-ov eV av- iriffTews tfiaerai' teal iav viro- 

t<£* 6 5e Sikcuos e/c iricrrews /uoi; cml\7]Tai, ovk evSoxe? i) tyvxh 

ffifferai. fu>v ev UVTqi. 

Eor he will surely come, He that shall come will 

and will not tarry. If he come, — and will not tarry, 

should draw back, my soul Now the just shall live by 

has no pleasure in him : but faith : but if any man draw 

the just shall live by my back, my soul shall have no 

faith. pleasure in him. 






Because it will surely 
come, it will not tarry. Be- 
hold, his soul ivhich is lifted 
up is not. upright in him : but 
the just shall live by his faith, 



(235.) Gen. xlvii. 31. 

YLal ■KpoaeKvvqfftv 'IffpcojA 
e7ri to aKpov ttjs pd§8ov avrov. 



And Israel did reverence, 
leaning on the top of his 
staff. 



Heb. xi. 21. 
Kal Trpoo~€KvV7]crev e7r! ro &- 
Kpov rrjs pd§5ov avrov. 

And worshipped, leaning 
upon the top of his staff. 



Gen. xlvii. 31. 

m-\-by ^m -infill 
: ntssb 

And Israel bowed himself 
upon the bed's head. 



(236.) Prov. hi. 11, 12. 

Tie, fj.% 6\iycopei Traideias 
icvpiov, /xr]5e iitAvov vn avrov 
eKeyx^jJ-ivos. ov yap ayaira 
Kvpios i\eyx^i, fiacrriyoi 5e 
■ndvra vibv ov ■napab'ex eTal ' 



My son despise not the 
chastening of the Lord ; nor 
faint when thou art rebuked 
of him ; for whom the Lord 
loves he rebukes, and 
scourges every son whom he 
receives. 



Heb. xii. 5, 6. 
[_Aia\4yerai •] Tie f.iov, fiT] 
bAiywpet. -naiodas Kvp'wv, /xn5Z 
iicAvov vtt' avrov iXeyx^^vos. 
ov yap ayawa icvpios iraih'tvti., 
IxaffTiyo? 5e irdvra vibv $>v 
TrapaSex^Tai. 

[Which speaketh,] My 
son, despise not thou the 
chastening of the Lord, nor 
faint when thou art rebuked 
of him : For whom the Lord 
loveth he chasteneth, and 
scourgeth every son whom 
he receiveth. 



Prov. iii. 11, 12. 

dnd^k \?3 nin; ID-ID 

My son, despise not the 
chastening of the Lord; nei- 
ther be weary of his correc- 
tion. For whom the Lord 
loveth he correcteth, even as 
a father the son in whom he 
delighteth. 



(237.) Ex. xix. 12, 13. 

Tlas 6 a^/dnevos rod opovs 
Bavdru T(A.fVTT]<Tei. — 'Ev yap 
\i6ois Ai6o§o\7]6-fi<reTaL rj j8o- 
Ai'5i KaTaro^ev8ricreTai • idv re 
kt?ivos idv t€ &.vdpa>iros, ov 
^■fjaerai. 

Every one that toucheth 
the mountain shall surely die, 
for he shall be stoned with 
stones or shot through with 
a dart, whether beast, or 
whether man, it shall not 
live. 



Heb. xii. 20. 
[Tb SLacrreWSfievov •] Kav 
6-npiov 6(yn too opovs, Xido- 
$o\rjQ-{]o~tTai. 



[Which was commanded,] 
And if so much as a beast 
touch the mountain, it shall 
be stoned. 



Ex. xix. 12, 13. 

n"3»* rrvix b$B] ^ipp-^ 

Whosoever toucheth the 
mount shall be surely put to 
death. There shall not an 
hand touch it, but he shall 
surely be stoned or shot 
through; whether it be beast 
or man, it shall not live. 



I 23S This quotation is from the Septuagint version of Gen. xlvii. 31., with the single omis- 
sion of the word Israel. But the LXX. pronounced the Hebrew word rOSH a staff or 
sceptre, instead of ntSDH a bed, as it is pointed in the Hebrew. We believe that the true 
reading is in the Masoretic punctuation, for it agrees best with Gen. xlviii. 2. and 1 Kings 
i. 47. Randolph takes the opposite view, because he thinks that Jacob was not confined to 
his bed then, contrary to the context; and because it is not easy to understand what can be 
meant by worshipping or bowing himself on the head of his bed (p. 45.), contrary to 1 Kings 
i. 47. The writer of the Epistle as usual follows the Greek. See Tuch on Genesis, and 
De Wette on the Epistle to the Hebrews. 



(238.) Deut. ix. 19. 

Kal en(po§6s elp.1 Ota rbv 
8v/.ibv ical tV bpyty. 

And I was greatly terri- 
fied because of the wrath 
and anger. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 

Heb. xii. 21. 



171 



[Mcovlttjs eltrev'J "Ei«po§6s 
el/j.i Kal evTpofxos. 

[Moses said,] I exceed- 
ingly fear and quake. 



Deut. ix. 19. 
S|8'iJ *JW? WJ *3 

: nin; tjvg *H?8 npoot 

For I was afraid of the 
anger and hot displeasure 



wherewith 
wroth. 



the Lord was 



(239.) Hag. ii. 6. 

"Et< a7ra£ eyoo a e'iff co 
ovpavbv Kal tt]v yrjv. 



Yet once I will shake the 
heaven and the earth. 



Heb. xii. 26. 
[Ae'-ycoi'] "Eti aira£, iyii 
ffeiaco ov fi6vov ttj^ yyv, aWa. 
Kal rbv obpavdv. 



[Saying,] Yet once more, 
I will shake not the earth 
only, but the heaven. 



Hag.ii. 6. 

\38.! k*'jj \$m nns nty 

Yet once, it is a little 
while, and I will shake the 
heavens, and the earth. 



Josh. i. 5. (Deut. xxxi. 8.) 



(240.) Deut. xxxi. 8. (Josh. Heb. xiii. 5. 

i.5.) 
Oi)K avT)(T€L ffe olSe fxri ffe [Au-rbs yap ei'prj/cej/] Ov ; ^ItytS-JOl ^ £>"!$$ fcO 

eyicaraXinri. (J.r) ffe avco oi/S' ov fiT] ffe !•) Ka- T v : " v 

TaAi7ro>. 

And he shall not forsake [For he hath said,] I will Iwill not fail thee, nor for- 
thee, nor abandon thee. never leave thee, nor forsake sake thee, 

thee. 



(241.) Ps. cxvii. 6. 

Kvpios e,uol Qoridbs, Kal ov 
(poS-qdriaofial ri iroi^cret fioi 
ctfOpooiros. 

The Lord is my helper; 
and I will not fear what man 
shall do to me. 



Heb. xiii. 6. 

Kvpios e/xol $07)ffbs, [«al] ov 
(poS-qOrio-o/xai • ri TTOirfffei /xot 
cxv8pcoiros ; 

The Lord is my helper, 
[and] I will not fear; What 
can man do unto me ? 



Fs. cxviii. 6. 

-'nb k-vk i6 ^ nin* 

The Lord is on my side; I 
will not fear : What can man 
do unto me ? 



(242.) Lev. xix. 18. 

Kal ayanriffeis tov tc\i)ffiov 



Lev. xix. 18. 

Thou shalt love thy neigh- Thou shalt love thy neigh- Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bour as thyself. hour as thyself. hour as thyself. 



ffov cos ffeavjui'. 



James ii. 8. 
'Ayair-fiffeis rbv irATjff lov ffov 
cos ffeavr6v. 



(243.) Ex. xx. 13. 15. 

Ov ixoix^ff^^. — Oli 



James ii. 1 1 
['O yap elircof'] M?; fioi- 
Xtvffris [elirev /ecu] Mt? <po- 
vevffrjs. 
Thou shalt not commit [For he that said,] Do 
adultery. Thou shalt not not commit adultery, [said 
kill. ' also] Do not kill. 



Ex. xx. 13, 14. 

Thou shalt not kill. — 
Thou shalt not commit adul- 
tery. 



240 This is from the LXX, with some variations. At first sight it seems to agree more 
closely with the Hebrew than the Greek. But it is improbable that the writer followed the 
former. In departing from the Greek for the sake of giving emphasis to the words, the 
author of the Epistle brings the citation unconsciously nearer the original. 



172 



Biblical Criticism. 



(244.) Gen. xv. 6. 

Kal WiaTevaev "A§pafi t<£ 
&ea>, /cal ehoyiadr) avrifi els Si- 
KOAoavvrjV. 

And Abraham believed 
God, and it was counted to 
him for righteousness. 



(245.) 



James ii. 23. 

['ETrA77pw07j V) ypacpT] i) Ae- 
yovaa'"] 'ETricrrevaev Se 'A- 
gpahfi tw dew, Kal eXoyiaQt} 
avrw els SiKaiocTvv7]v. 

[And the scripture was 
fulfilled, which saith,] Abra- 
ham believed God, and it 
was imputed unto him for 
righteousness. 

James iv. 5. 

['H ypacpT) Aeyei"] Tlpbs 
cpdovov eTmrodei rb irvevfxa b 
Ka.TwK.iaev ev i)/xiv ; 

[The scripture saith,] The 
spirit that dwelleth in us 
lusteth to envy. 



Gen. xv. 6. 

: np T iy 

And he believed in the 
Lord ; and he counted it to 
him for righteousness. 



James iv. 6. 
[Ae'7ej] 'O B.ebs vTrepr/cpd- V»v» 
vols afTirdcrcreiai, t aiceiv ots Se 
SiSwcriv X°-P IV - 

[He saith,] God resisteth 
but he gives grace to the the proud, but giveth grace scorners : but he giveth grace 
humble. unto the humble. unto the lowly. 



(246.) Prov. iii. 34. 

Kvpios virep-qcpdvois avriTaff- 
crerai, raneivols Se SiSuai x<*- 
piv. 

The Lord resists the proud ; 



Prov. iii. 34. 
Surely he scorneth the 



(247.) Lev. xi. 44. 1 Pet. i. 16. 

Kal ayioi ecreade, on ayios [TeypaitTai •] "Aytoi ecre- 

elfju eyw Kvpios 6 6ebs vfi&v. o~9e, '6tl eyw ayios. 

And ye shall be holy, be- [It is written,] Be ye holy; 

cause I the Lord your God for I am holy, 
am holy. 



Lev. xi. 44. 

And ye shall be holy, for I 
am holy. 



(248.) Is. xl. 6, &c. 

riacra <rap| x°P ros i Ka ^ 7r "- 
aa S6£a avdpwirov ws &v9os 
x6prou. etypavdri 6 x^pros Kal 
rb dv9os i^e-Ketre, rb Se pr)/j.a 
tov 9eo0 7}jjlwv /ueVei els rbv 
aluva. 

All flesh is grass, and all 
the glory of man as the 
flower of grass. The grass 



1 Pet. i. 24, 25. 
Tlcura <rap£ xopros, Kai ira- 
cra 5o'£a avT-rjs cos 'dv9os x°P~ 
tov. e^ripdudr] 6 x^P T0S > KaL 
Tb &v9os e^e-neffev • rb Se pijfj.a 
Kvpiov fievei els tov alwva. 



All flesh is as grass, and 
all the glory of man as the 
flower of grass. The grass 



Is. xl. 6, &c. 

All flesh is grass, and all 
the goodliness thereof is as 
the flower of the field. The 



245 This is a very difficult passage. Those who look upon it as a citation are puzzled to 
find the original. They refer it to many places, as Gen. vi. 5, 11.; Num. xi. 29.; Ezek. 
xxiii. 25. ; Prov. xxi. 10.; Cant. viii. 6.; Eccles. iv. 4.; Wis. vi. 11, 23. ; Gal. v. 17, 21. 
Some think that it contains a general reference to the doctrine of Scripture, and not a 
direct citation; while others regard it as a paraphrastic application of the tenth command- 
ment. On the whole, it is best not to look for any quotation in the words, as if r) ypacpT 
Aeyei were introductory to one. If we translate " Do ye think that the Scripture speaks 
in vain?" with reference to what is stated in the preceding verse, viz., the friendship of 
the world is enmity with God, we shall perhaps come nearest the true view. But it must 
be admitted that this idea is not free from objections, especially the implication that 
the writer speaks of the collection of the N. T. Scriptures under the title of ypacpT). 

246 This is from the LXX., merely putting 6 Bibs for Kvpios. The Hebrew agrees in 
sense, though not in expression. 



Quotations from the Old Testament in the New. 



173 



withers, and the flower fades ; withereth, — and the flower grass withered:, the flower 

but the word of our God thereof falleth away: But fadeth: but the word of our 

abides for ever. the word of the Lord en- God shall stand for ever, 

dureth for ever. 



(249.) Is. xxviii. 16. 

'iSov eyco e,u§aAAcd els ra 
Be/xeAia Slav \idoi' TroAvreAij 
eicAeKrbv aKpoyoivtalov evri- 
fJ-ov, els Tot deixeAta avri]s, Kal 
6 Tricrrevctiv ov fj.li Karaiaxwdfj. 

Behold, I lay for the foun- 
dations of Sion, a costly stone 
a choice, a corner-stone, a 
precious stone for its foun- 
dations ; and he that be- 
lieves on it shall by no means 
be ashamed. 

(250.) Ps. cxvii. 22, 23. 

AiOov bv aireSoiufxaaav ol 
olKoSo/xovvres, OVTOS iyeV7}07] 
els Ke<paArjv yaivlas. 

The stone which the build- 
ers rejected the same is be- 
come the head of the coiner. 



1 Pet. ii. 6. 

[Ilepiexei i) ypacpr)-"] 'ISov 
ri6r]ui ev "Siwv AiQov aKpoyia- 
vialov eKAeKrbv evrifxov, Kal 6 

TTKTTeVOlV 67r' aVTIp ov ft)] Ka- 

Taiaxwdrj. 

[It is contained in the 
Scripture,] Behold, I lay in 
Sion a chief corner-stone, 
elect, precious ; and he that 
believeth on him shall not be 
confounded. 



1 Pet. ii. 7. 

Aidos bv aifeSoicifxaa-av ol 
olKoSofiovvres, ovros eyevr)Q7] 
els KecpaAyv yuvias. 

The stone which the build- 
ers disallowed, the same is 
made the head of the corner. 



Is. xxviii. 16. 

}3S |3K jVv? is? *m 
IB-ID Tp-10 n-\\>\ rus |03 

Behold, I lay in Zion for 
a foundation a stone, a tried 
stone, a precious corner stone, 
a sure foundation : he that be- 
lieveth shall not make haste. 



Ps. cxviii. 22, 23. 

The stone which the build- 
ers refused is become the 
head stone of the corner. 



(251.) Ex. xix. 6. 

'Tfie7s Se eaecrQe fxoi /Sacn- 
Aeiov lepdrevfia Kal edvos a- 
ywv. 

And ye shall be to me a 
royal priesthood and a holy 
nation. 

(252.) Is. liii. 9. 

'Avo/xiav ovk eiroir)crev, ovSe 
SoAov ev rca crrd'fiari avrov. 

He practised no iniquity 
nor craft with his mouth. 



(253.) Is. liii. 5. 

Taj fiwAanri avrov vfie7s la- 
Brj/xev. 

And by his bruises we 
were healed. 



1 Pet. ii. 9. 

'Tfxe?s Se — (Saalheiov lepd- 
revfia, edvos ayiov. 



But ye are a royal 

priesthood, an holy nation. 

1 Pet. ii. 22. 

*Os afiaprlav ovk eiro'nicrev, 
ovSe evpeOr) S6Aos ev riS o~t6- 
fxari avrov. 

Who did no sin, neither 
was guile found in his mouth. 

1 Pet. ii. 24. 
Ou rif fiuAwwi avrov Id- 
Ojjre. 

By whose stripes ye were 
healed. 



Ex. xix. 6. 

And ye shall be unto me a 
kingdom of priests, and an 
holy nation. 

Is. liii. 9. 

ntonp vb) nb>y D»rr&6 
: vd? 

Because he had done no 
violence, neither was any 
deceit in his mouth. 

Is. liii. 5. 

With his stripes we are 
healed. 



(254.) Ps. xxxiii. 13, &c. 

Ti's ecrrtv &v6pa>Tros 6 OeAoov 
(,'cotji', ayair&v i)fxepas lSe7v a- 
yaO&s ; navaov ryv yAwaadv 
crov curb KaKov, koI x 6 '^ 7 ? °~ ov 
rov fxy] AaAi)a~at SoAov ' eKKAt- 
vov curb KaKov Kal TroiTjcrov a- 
yaffbv, ^rjT-qaov elpr)vr]v, Kal 
Sloo^ov avrr)v. b<pBaAfiol Kvplov 
eirl StKaiovs, Kal Sna avrov els 
Serjo-iv avrSiv • irpoaomov Se 
Kvpiov eirl TTOiovvras rea/cct. 



1 Pet. ill. 10, 11, 12. 

'O yap OeXiav £wt)v ayanai) 
Kal iSe7v fjfjepas ayadas rrav 
adrio r\\v yASxxcrav curb KaKov 
Kal X^V T0 " H-h Ac.Arjrrai So- 
Aov, eKKAivdru Se airb KaKov 
Kal TroiTjcaTui dyadov, Cv T V- 
adrai elpT)vr)V Kal Sia£dra> av- 
r-!)v, on ocpdaAfiol Kvplov ewl 
StKaiovs Kal cora avrov els 
Sey]aiv avrSiv, wpoabnrov Se Kv- 
piov eirl iroiovvras KaKa. 



Ps. xxxiv. 13. (12.) &c. 

y-jo -i-i d : n»-|» ~\^n 
-^ nin; ^y : ■ins'i-ii. 

: vi ^ ; y? nin: »js 



174 



Biblical Criticism. 



What man is there that 
desires life, loving to see good 
days ? Keep thy tongue from 
evil, and thy lips from speak- 
ing guile. Turn away from 
evil, and do good; seek peace 
and pursue it The eyes of 
the Lord are over the right- 
eous, and his cars are open 
to their prayer. But the face 
of the Lord is against them 
that do evd. 



For he that will love life 
and see good days, let him 
refrain his tongue from evil, 
and his lips that they speak 
no guile. Let him eschew 
evil, and do good: let him 
seek peace, and ensue it. 
For the eyes of the Lord are 
over the righteous, and his 
ears are 0£>en unto their 
prayers; but the face of the 
Lord is against them that do 
evil. 



What man is he that de- 
sireth life, and loveth many 
days, that he may see good? 
Keep thy tongue from evil, 
and thy lips from speaking 
guile. Depart from evil, and 
do good ; seek peace, and 
pursue it. The eyes of the 
Lord are upon the righteous, 
and his ears are open unto 
their cry. The face of the 
Lord is against them that 
do evil. 



(255.) Is. viii. 12, 13. 1 Pet. iii. 14, 15. 

Thv 8e cpo€ov alirov ov fir] Tbv 5e cp6gov avTuiv /jl^ <po- 

<po§r)drJTe ou5e fiT] rapaxdnre. PrjBrJTe, /xr]Se rapaxBrjre, kv- 

Kvpiov avrbv ayidaare. piov 5e rbv xp iaT ^ v ayidaare. 



But fear not ye their fear, And he not afraid of their 
neither be dismayed. Sane- terror, neither be troubled, 
tify ye the Lord himself, but sanctify the Lord Christ. 



(256.) Prov. x. 12. 

TldvTas 5e tovs jut/ (piKovei- 
icovvras i<a\inrrei <pi\ia. 



1 Pet. iv. 8. 
["On] aydirrj KaXvirrei 
ir\fjdos afxapriuiv. 



Affection covers all that [For,] Charity covers the 
do not love strife. multitude of sins. 



(257.) Prov. xxvi, 11. 

"ClffTrep Kvaiv '6tuv iireAdr) 
eVi rbv eauTou epLSTOf. 



As when a dog goes to 
his own vomit. 



2 Pet. ii. 22. 

[2u/X§€§7JK€^ avTOLS rb TTJS 

aArjdovs TrapoifJiias ,] kvqov iirt- 
arrpe\j/as iirl rb tSiov Qtpa/na, 
ical vs AovcrafjLtvn els KvAta/Aa 
fiopSopov. 

[But it is happened unto 
them according to the true 
proverb,] The dog is turned 
to his own vomit again, 
and the sow that was wash- 
ed, to her wallowing in the 



Is. viii. 12, 13. 

j *B^j?b ink 

Neither fear ye their fear, 
nor be afraid. Sanctify the 
Lord of hosts himself. 

Prov. x. 12. 

*rnq« 

Love covereth all sins. 
Prov. xxvi. 11. 



As a dog returneth to his 
vomit. 



(258.) Ps. ii. 9. 

Tloifiapeis avTovs if pdSSco 
criSripa, ws (TKevos Kepa/xews 
avvTptytis avTovs. 

Thou shalt rule them with 
a rod of iron; thou shalt dash 
them in pieces as a potter's 
vessel 



Eev. ii. 27. 
[Kai] iroifiavei avrovs ev 
pagScj) aidrjpa, &s to, ffKevr] to, 
KepafXiKa awTpiSerai. 

[And] He shall rule them 
with a rod of iron ; as the 

vessels of a potter shall they 
be broken to shivers. 



Ps. ii. 9. 

^?3 ^.p.3 D3#3 tjjhjji 

Thou shalt break them 
with a rod of iron; thou 
shalt dash them in pieces like 
a potter's vessel. 



255 This is from the Greek, with which the Hebrew agrees in meaning. The apostle, 
however, has adapted the words of Isaiah to his own purpose. In the LXX. we have 
aurov, but in Peter avrSiv, which are equivalent in sense. 

25S This is generally looked upon as a citation from Prov. x. 12. If so. it agrees 
more nearly with the Hebrew than the Greek. The Septuagint gives a very incorrect 
representation of the original. Perhaps the apostle refers to a proverb which was then 
current, and not to the passage in the book of Proverbs. See De Wette. 

258 This is from the LXX., with a very slight alteration of the person from the second 
to the third. 



Sources whence Quotations were taken. 175 



CHAP. XXIX. 

SOURCES WHENCE QUOTATIONS WERE TAKEN. 

The chief source of citations in the New Testament is the Septu- 
agint version. This was generally used by the early Christians, who 
were not acquainted with the original Hebrew. It was universally 
received and read. To have departed from it therefore without a 
valid reason, would have hindered the progress of the truth. The 
sacred writers employed it as the Old Testament, because it was 
best known to all. There was no good cause for departing from it 
except where it was very incorrect, or unfit for a particular purpose. 
Wherever it expressed the sense of the original sufficiently well to 
serve the writers' end, they naturally adopted it. In the great 
majority of cases, the Greek version must be regarded as the source 
whence citations in the New Testament were derived. 

But we cannot go so far as to affirm, with some, that the Septu- 
agint was the exclusive source. Occasionally the Hebrew was also 
employed. An examination of several texts leads to this conclusion. 
The LXX. were abandoned in various places ; and the Old Testa- 
ment cited in nearer conformity to the Hebrew. It is true that the 
instances in which this was done are comparatively few. But the 
fact cannot be denied. Why the writers occasionally had recourse 
to the Hebrew, is a difficult question to answer. Did they resort to 
it whenever the Greek was so incorrect as not to give the true 
sense ? So it might be thought by such as reason a priori. But 
there are phenomena adverse to that hypothesis. It is impossible to 
furnish any general reply to the question. Every individual case of 
quotation must be judged by itself; and when all are so considered, 
it will be found impossible to obtain any one satisfactory answer to 
the question. All that can be affirmed with truth is, that the 
writers sometimes judged it better for then* purpose to bring the 
form of a quotation nearer to the Hebrew than the Greek version 
presented it. They may not have done this because they believed 
that the latter failed to express the true sense. We can imagine 
other reasons to have operated on their minds. 

In addition to the Hebrew and Septuagint, it has been thought 
that several quotations were derived from a translation or paraphrase 
now lost. But when the list of such passages is examined, it will 
be found that there is no sufficient basis for the view in question. It 
is entirely unnecessary. 

It has also been supposed that some citations in the New Testa- 
ment were taken from apocryphal writings. Examples of such are said 
to exist in 2 Tim. iii. 8. Here the names of the two magicians that 
withstood Moses are given. According to Origen, the knowledge 
and names of these impostors was derived by Paul from an apocry- 
phal book. This is unlikely. Nor is it probable that he took the 
names from the Targum of Jonathan on Exod. vii. 11. Probably 
he followed Jewish tradition ; for the names in question are in the 



176 Biblical Criticism. 

Talmud and other Jewish writings as well as in the Targum of 
Jonathan. 

In the epistle of Jude two instances of apocryphal quotations are 
adduced. One is in the ninth verse, where Michael the archangel 
is said to have disputed with Satan about the body of Moses. Here 
some think that the writer followed the apocryphal book called the 
" Ascension of Moses," mentioned by Origen. It is more likely 
that Jewish tradition was the source of his information. 

The fourteenth verse of the same epistle refers to a prophecy of 
Enoch contained in the apocryphal book of Enoch. The passage in 
the book of Enoch as translated by Laurence is this : " Behold he 
comes with ten thousands of his saints to execute judgment upon 
them, and destroy the wicked, and reprove all the carnal ; for every 
thing which the sinful and ungodly have done and committed against 
him." (chap. ii. p. 2. Oxford, 1838, third edition.) If the result of 
recent studies by Hoffmann 1 , Llicke 2 , and Krieger 3 , be well grounded, 
the work in question was written before the year 70, in Greek ; 
and it is not improbable that Jude actually quoted it. Such was 
the view of the Fathers — of Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, 
Jerome, and Augustine. 4 Nor is the authenticity of the epistle 
lessened, though an apocryphal document be quoted in it. All that 
is really sanctioned by the writer is the single passage cited, not 
the entire composition. Others think that Jude followed tradi- 
tional accounts then received by the Jews. 

A few examples of citations from profane authors are found in the 
New Testament. The Apostle Paul writing to the Gentiles or 
disputing with them, has quoted from Pagan authors, such as Aratus, 
Menander, Epimenides. In Acts xvii. 28. are words borrowed from 
the (f>acvo/jLsva of Aratus, which were originally spoken of Jupiter, 
the supreme God of the heathen. In 1 Cor. xv. 33. the words 
(fideipovaiv i]@7) XPW^ 6/ju\icil tea/cat are taken from Menander's Thais, 
a comedy now lost; and in Titus i. 12. the Apostle alludes to Epime- 
nides, a Cretan poet. 



CHAP. XXX. 

INTRODUCTORY FORMULAS. 



Most of the citations in the New Testament from the Old are intro- 
duced by certain formulas, such as it is written, the Scripture saith, 
that it might be fulfilled, &c. &c. These seldom contain a specific 
intimation of the places from which the passage is cited. The name 
of the writer is sometimes given ; but the book or writing itself is 
not often mentioned, and the place still seldomer. The persons ad- 
dressed in the New Testament were supposed to be already acquainted 

1 Das Buch Henoch, u. s. w., Erste Abtheilung, Einleit. p. 23. et seqq. 
3 Versuch einer vollstandigen Einleitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes, § 11. 
second edition. 

3 Beitriige zur Kritik und Exegese, 1845. 

4 See Arnaud's Recherches Critiques sur l'Epitro de Jude, p. 127. et seqq. 






Introductory Formulas of Quotations. \ 7 7 

with, the Old, so that they could readily find a passage without 
minute direction. They knew the Jewish Scriptures in the Greek 
version ; or it was of no consequence to specify the cited passage 
more exactly. Besides, even had the New Testament writers thought 
it a matter of importance to mention the place whence a quotation 
was derived, it would have been inconvenient, in consequence of the 
want of chapters and verses. The biblical MSS. were then written 
continuously without such divisions. "Where a section in the Old 
Testament is marked, a thing that rarely occurs, some principal word 
is selected and applied as a designation of the whole paragraph. 
Thus in Mark xii. 26., and Luke xx. 37., sttI tt}s- fidrov, in the bush- 
section, i.e. the third chapter of Exodus. So too in Rom. xi. 2., hv 
'U\la, in the Elias-section, viz. the 17th, 18th, and 19th chapters of 
1 Kings. A similar practice was followed by the Rabbins. The 
Mohammedans do the same in quoting the chapters of the Koran. 
But the common method of quotation followed in the New Testament 
is indefinite, a specific mention of place being the exception not the 
rule. Introductory formulas are quite general. 

A similarity between the formulas of the New Testament writers 
and those employed by the Rabbins has often been noticed, as indeed 
it could scarcely fail to be. Surenhusius 1 in particular has collected 
a number of phrases similar to the Scripture formulas. His object was 
to defend the interpretation of the apostles against the Jews of his 
time, so that if blame be attached to the New Testament writers 
for their modes of quotation, it must equally belong to the Talmu- 
dical doctors. This kind of argumentation may be very useful for 
the purpose of silencing an opponent : as an argumentum ad hominem 
it may be legitimate and forcible ; but it cannot contribute to an 
enlightened estimate of the whole subject. It leads unavoidably to 
the conclusion that the apostles were not exempt from the absurd 
interpretations of the Rabbins, which has been enunciated indeed 
more or less plainly by Dopke, Ruckert, Fritzsche, and others. 
The analogy between such formulas can be easily accounted for. 
The apostles and their disciples being Jews, cited Scripture after 
the usual formulas to which the schools of the Rabbins had given 
..currency. The Apostle of the Gentiles especially, accustomed to 
Rabbinical dialectics before his conversion, has many Rabbinical 
expressions, such as, ti 8s spovp,sv, spsls ovv, dX)C Ipsl tis, p,^ ysvoiro, 
f) dyvoslrs, &c. But the analogy in question may be exaggerated ; as 
it has been by Surenhusius. The assimilation to current phraseology, 
arising from the fact that the New Testament writers were native 
Jews and therefore partaking of Jewish modes of conception and 
using speech essentially Jewish, need not be carried so far as to 
induce the belief that formulas absurd or fanciful were naturally 
adopted by the sacred writers. Some Rabbinical formulas find 
their analogies in the New Testament; but many do not. Those 
that consist of trifling conceits, far-fetched allegory, ingenious pueri- 
lity, unhistorical or ungrammatical use of language, are not em- 

1 Bl§\os icaTaWayvs. Amstel. 1713, 4to. See Davidson's Sacred Hermenentics i 
pp t-49, 450. 

VOL. II. N 



178 Biblical Criticism, 

ployed. The accommodation to prevailing modes of speech must be 
limited, for it was not undiscriminating, and general. Doubtless 
the spirit that was in the writers led them to reject various formulas 
current in their time. All the analogies too collected by Suren- 
husius are not real ones. His examples should be reduced in 
number ; for in his anxiety to justify all the quotations made from 
the Old Testament in the New, he has collected too many of what 
are thought similar instances. 

The following introductory formulas characterise the books of the 
New Testament, 

In quoting Messianic passages, Matthew has the formula iva 
ifkripwOfi to prjdsv vtto Kvptov Sid tov Trpocpijrov, i. 22., ii. 15. This is 
abbreviated in ii. 17., iii. 3., iv. 14., viii. 17., xii. 17., xiii. 14. 35., 
xxi. 4., xxvi. 56., xxvii. 9. The phrase tovto Bs o\ov ysyovsv iva 
k. t. X. does not occur elsewhere. Matthew also employs ykypanrrai, 
slirsv singly or accompanied with 6ebs or Mwvo-f)?. 

In Mark's Gospel the usual formula is ysypairjai, toy ysypairrai, or 
some parallel expression. 

Luke has commonly ysypairrai, rjv yey pafipusvov, or ypdcpco joined to 
other words. In John the customary formula is yeypafiphov, /caOcos 
sanv ysypapbjxsvov, iva TrXrjpcodrj with o) ypacprj or 6 \6yo9 as the 
subject. 

In the Acts of the Apostles all the introductory clauses differ. No 
two are alike. 

The Epistle to the Romans has KaOws ysypairrai as the charac- 
teristic formula. The chief departures from it are in the ninth, tenth, 
and eleventh chapters, which refer to the Jews, where we find 'Haaias 
\sysi, ^,'lcouarjs Xsysi, &C. 

The two Corinthian epistles have kclOcos yiypairrai, yey pairrai, &c. 

In the Epistle to the Galatians ysypa-rrrat yap, on ysypairrai, &c. 
are used. 

The Epistle to the Ephesians has only three quotations, two of 
which are prefaced with 8ib \sysi. 

In the Epistles to Timothy are only two quotations, one with a 
preface. 

The Epistle to the Hebrews has usually Xsysi, fxaprupslrai, etprjjcs, 
slirsv, with irvzviia or 6ebs as the subject, Tpdcpco is never used. 
The manner of citation here is like that in Philo. 

The Epistle of James has five citations, three of which are in- 
troduced by the verb Xsyco ; another by 6 dironv. 

Peter's manner is to have no formula. In three instances he has 
one, yiypainai, irspus^i rj ypacp/]. 

It is impossible to regard these introductory formulas as direct in- 
dications of the modes in which quotations are made. We cannot 
infer from them, a, priori, the degree of accuracy with which the Old 
Testament will be adduced. Hence Surenhusius was mistaken. 1 

1 " Videndum est prius qua allegandi formula utantur apostoli, ex qua statim diguo- 
scere licet, quare sequentia verba hoc, et non alio modo allegaverint, atque ad veterem 
Scripturarc Hebrffiam plus minusve attenderint ; sic alium sensum inYotvit ilia allegandi 
formula i^p-hSi) ; alium "yeypairrat," &c. Prsefat. 






Introductory Formulas of Quotations. j^g 

That they are not infallible indexes of the modes in which quotations 
are made is evident from the fact, that different formulas are prefixed 
to the very same citations in the same words, in different books, as 
in Mark xv. 28. ; Lnke xxii. 37. Thus they are sometimes used 
synonymously. The rigid distinctions made by Surenhusius cannot 
be carried out ; and his multifarious rules are both perplexing and 
useless. 

Yet the diversity of introductory formulas cannot be regarded as 
the result of mere taste or caprice on the part of the writers and 
speakers. It was not always a matter of indifference whether they 
used this one or that. Some reasons for the variety in question may 
be assigned, in addition to the natural aversion to sameness which 
every good writer more or less feels. It was not a point of perfect 
indifference whether one formula or another was employed. What 
then are the causes of such diversity ? 

One cause may be discovered in the position and attainments of 
the persons addressed. Thus Hebrew Christians acquainted with 
the Jewish Scriptures were differently appealed to from Gentile con- 
verts. The same introductory formula was not equally suitable to 
both classes. The former were reminded of the authority attaching 
to the words quoted, by the expression, " God says" or " speaks " so 
and so ; while the latter were referred to certain documents where 
the passages might be found. l To the former the phraseology in 
which said expresses the main idea was better adapted, while to the 
latter, it is written is commonly addressed. The correctness of these 
remarks will be apparent to any one who compares the usual formula 
of quotation in Matthew's Gospel, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and 
that of James, with the introductory expressions in the Epistles to 
the Churches at Rome, at Corinth, and in Galatia. "When the in- 
dividuals addressed were acquainted with the Old Testament, the 
verb Xsyco was generally employed. It was sufficient in such cir- 
cumstances to refer to God as saying such and such things ; or to 
Scripture as speaking after a certain manner. But when the Chris- 
tian converts were less familiar with the Old Testament — when they 
were Gentiles not Jews — what is written is generally referred to. 
Thus a distinction in the usage of introductory formulas is observed 
according to the circumstances of the people addressed. 

In explaining this difference of introductory formulas by means of 
the degree of attainment possessed by the persons to whom the books 
of the New Testament were at first directed, it must not be thought 
that the rule holds good without exception. In some cases formulas 
are used synonymously, as in Rom. iv. 3. compared with James ii. 23. 2 

Another cause which influenced the form of these introductory 
clauses may be found in the purposes for which quotations were 
made. In showing the fulfilment of a prophecy, a New Testament 
writer would employ a different formula from that used to support 
a position or afford an illustration. In pointing out that a thing 

1 See Townson on the Gospels, pp. 98, 99., 4th edition, Dublin, 1831. 

2 Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 453. 



180 Biblical Criticism. 

was accomplished, and in enforcing a sentiment, lie would speak 
differently. 

An introduction is commonly wanting to a quotation when several 
texts follow in succession, as in Rom. iii. 10 — 18. In like manner 
it is usually absent from a passage inserted a second time. 



CHAP. XXXI. 

ON THE EXTERNAL FORM OF QUOTATIONS. 

From the introductory formulas we proceed to consider the quota- 
tions themselves. Here various degrees of discrepancy between the 
citations and their originals may be observed. A wide field of in- 
vestigation is opened up by comparing the passages cited with the 
Old Testament from which they are taken. Discrepancies appear 
which have often perplexed the serious inquirer, and given occasion 
to the infidel to rejoice. But before instituting a thorough com- 
parison of quotations with their originals, it is desirable to look at 
the state of the Hebrew text, the Septuagint, and the Greek text of 
the New Testament. Allowance must be made for various readings. 
Some theologians have made considerable use of this expedient. 
Assuming what none can deny, that the Hebrew and the Greek may 
be corrupt, though there are no existing means of correcting them, 
they have inferred that certain passages are so. Drs. Randolph and 
Owen are the chief advocates of this notion. Thus the Hebrew has 
been considered corrupt in Isa. lxiv. 4. quoted in 1 Cor. ii. 9. ; in 
Zech. xii. 10. compared with John xix. 37. ; in Isa. xxviii. 16. with 
Rom. ix. 33.; in Psal. xix. 4. compared with Rom. x. 18.; in Jer. 
xxxi. 31 — 34. with Heb. viii. 8., &c. ; in Hos. xiv. 3. with Heb. 
xiii. 15.; in Psal. xl. 7 — 9. with Heb. x. 5 — 7.; in Amos. ix. 11, 12. 
with Acts xv. 15, 16.; in Matt. xv. 8, 9. compared with Isa. xxix. 
13. ; and in Hos. xiii. 14. compared with 1 Cor. xv. 55. But a par- 
ticular examination of these passages justifies the assertion that the 
Hebrew text, as it now is, was the same in the time of the Septuagint 
translators, except perhaps in Amos ix. 11, 12., where corruption 
may have existed. And in regard to the Greek text of the New 
Testament, Matt, xxvii. 9, 10. from Zech. xi. 13., and Heb. i. 12. 
from Psal. ci. 26., it cannot be charged with corruption. The words 
'IspsfjLLov and ekl^sis must stand as those originally written. Thus 
the texts of good modern editions of the Hebrew, the LXX., and 
the Greek Testament, may be fairly taken as a basis of comparison 
between citations and their originals. Whatever difficulties lie in the 
subject, and there are many, they cannot be resolved by recourse to 
this expedient. The texts are good as we have them. 

The degree of accuracy with which quotations adhere to their ori- 
ginals depends on various circumstances. 

It is apparent that the sacred authors never intended to cite pas- 
gages without omitting a word or syllable. They were by no means 



On the external Form of Quotations. 181 

scrupulous in that respect. They were not careful to preserve the 
external form of Old Testament places. Had they been otherwise, 
they would not hare quoted from memory, as they usually did. 
Copies of the Scriptures were rare in the time of the Apostles. And 
as those inspired men were intent on the sense in its application to 
certain purposes, they did not confine themselves to the exact words of 
Scripture. They quoted freely and loosely because they quoted 
from memory. But it is improbable that they relied solely and in 
all cases on memory. No doubt they sometimes consulted a MS. of 
the Greek version. In consequence of this usage on the part of the 
New Testament writers, we are prepared to find great variety in 
their modes of citation. They alter and transform the Old Testa- 
ment in different ways without material alteration of the sense. 

1. The writers often add to their citations some words from another 
passage. Thus Matt. xxi. 5., zlirarz rfj Ouyarpc, are taken from Isa. 
lxii. 11. and prefixed to Zech. ix. 9. So also in Acts i. 20., xiii. 22. 
Or, they write various parallel passages in one to give greater 
clearness and force to their thoughts, as in Rom. ix. 33. ; 1 Pet. 
ii. 6, 7. Compare also Eom. xi. 8. 26, 27. ; 2 Cor. vi. 16—18. 

2. Sometimes they abridge a passage, or cite only as much of it 
as is necessary for their purpose, John xii. 40., xv. 16, 17. 25.; 
1 Cor. i. 31. 

3. They frequently invert the order of words, Rom. xi. 3., Matt. 
xix. 18., 2 Cor. vi. 17., Luke x. 27. Or, they add some words, as 
Heb. viii. 5., Matt, xxvii. 9. where there is both transposition and 
addition of terms. 

4. They substitute synonymous or equivalent expressions for 
those in the original text. Thus Mark iv. 12., Luke iii. 6., Matt. 
xxi. 16., Rom. ix. 27. 

5. They also alter a passage by retrenching words or whole 
phrases and adding others, so that it appears very unlike the original. 
This is done that it may be more suitable to the end they have in 
view, as in Rom. x. 6. But notwithstanding such extensive changes, 
it can be shown that they do not knowingly pervert a text, nor wil- 
fully misapply it. This will appear from the fact that though they 
commonly follow the Greek version, they also deviate from it. And 
these deviations, in many instances, give a more faithful translation. 
"We cannot affirm that they do so always ; for the Greek is also re- 
tained in cases where the sense might have been better given by 
recourse to the original, or by different words in Greek. It is 
certain that some of the writers were acquainted with the Hebrew 
text and employed it to advantage. Their alterations of the Greek 
text, whether arbitrary or otherwise, resulting from the state of their 
memory or not, show that all were not so dependent on a version as 
to follow it when it was positively and essentially incorrect. To a 
considerable extent they were independent of it. This is exemplified 
in the usage of Matthew, John, and Paul ; Luke being more de- 
pendent on the LXX. It is evident that Matthew, or at least his 
translator, or both, knew the Hebrew in addition to the Greek. 
Thus in ii. 15. the words ra rsicva avrov of the LXX. are displaced 

N 3 



182 Biblical Criticism. 

by rbv vlov fjuov, which approach the Hebrew. In iv. 15, 16. the 
passage of Isaiah is otherwise rendered than the Greek, which is 
unintelligible. In xii. 18. the Evangelist shows that he was ac- 
quainted with both the Hebrew and the Greek. There are other 
places in which his citations approach the Hebrew, as Matt. xiii. 35., 
xxi. 5., xxii. 37., xxvi. 31. The free character of Matthew's cita- 
tions — an absence of literal adherence to the original words whether 
Greek or Hebrew — may be observed by the careful reader. He 
mostly follows the former in preference to the latter. But in Mes- 
sianic passages, the original seems to have been uniformly consulted, 
so as to bring them into greater conformity to it. Credner, who 
has examined at great length the quotations in Matthew's Gospel to 
ascertain their bearing on the original language of it, supposes that 
the Apostle everywhere follows the Greek version, but after a text 
which in Messianic passages, and in them only, had been collated 
with the Hebrew, and also in some places, according to Gesenius, 
with an ancient Targum, and altered in conformity to such docu- 
ments. ' But the assumption of this systematic alteration in the 
text of the LXX., existing merely in a certain class of passages, 
rests on no solid foundation. It is better to say, that in Messianic 
places, the Hebrew is followed more than the Greek. With respect 
to John, in xix. 37. he renders the Hebrew of Zech. xii. 10. by the 
words otyovrai sis bv a^Ksvrrjcrav, while the LXX. give a false trans- 
lation. Other passages are similar, as xii. 15., xiii. 18. The inde- 
pendence of John in his citations of the Old Testament are obvious ; 
for he not only departs from the Greek version, but is unlike the 
other Evangelists in theirs. Had he used the so-called Urevangelium 
or Protevangelium of his time, in which it has been supposed that the 
texts of the Hebrew original and the LXX. had been already blended 
together, as Credner assumes of him and Matthew 2 , the citations 
of both must have been pretty much alike; whereas they are not so. 
In like manner, the Apostle Paul often deviates from the LXX. 
when they translate inrproperly. Examples are found in Rom. x. 
15. ; 1 Cor. xiv. 21., xv. 54. It is true that the Apostle sometimes 
quotes the Greek version where it is faulty ; but the faults are so 
small as to have no material influence on the sense of the passage. 
See Rom. xv. 12., where D*$8 D3 1 ? 1DJ> 1g>8 is translated by the 
LXX. 6 dvLa-Tdfisvos apxsiv hdvoyv, followed by the Apostle, though 
the words properly mean, standing as a banner for the Gentiles ; and 
also where the Hebrew Wh*V. is translated sXttiovctiv. In like manner, 
in the same Epistle, x. 18. where i|2 line is rendered (pdo'yyos by the 
LXX., that word is followed by the Apostle, though the Hebrew 
term is properly applied only in the sense of a measuring-line. See 
Hengstenberg on Psal. xix. 4. On the whole, it may be safely 
affirmed that Matthew, John, and Paul were independent of the 
Septuagint, freely deserting it when it failed to render the original 
Hebrew ina way not pertinent to their purpose. 

As to Luke, and him who penned the Epistle to the Hebrews, the 

1 See Beitrage zur Einleitung in das Nene Testament, vol. ii. 

2 Beitrage, p. 512. et seqq. 



On the external Form of Quotations. 183 

case seems to be otherwise. They probably were ignorant of Hebrew, 
and were therefore obliged to employ the Greek version solely. 
All the citations of Luke appear to be derived from the LXX. ; and 
the slight variations from it that occur may be attributed to tradition 
which had given a stereotype form to certain passages, or to memory 
not retaining the exact words. This has led to the adoption of the 
Septuagint rendering in some cases where it would have been aban- 
doned had the evangelist known HebreAv. Some mistakes are re- 
tained because they are in the Greek version. But they are not 
important. They do not affect the general sense, though it must be 
confessed that they are greater defects than such as are to be found 
in Paul, John, or Matthew. Thus, instead of OlpTlpS Dn-1D^, Isaiah 
lxi. 1., the Septungint has TV<fc\oi2 ava&Xs-^nv, which is followed 
by Luke. The Divine Spirit, however, notwithstanding defects in 
the form of quotations, led the sacred author into the meaning of 
the Old Testament. Almost all the citations in the Acts, which are 
much more numerous than those in the Gospel, are from the Greek. 
It is impossible to tell whether the departures from that version 
which they present, are owing to the Apostles and others who deli- 
vered the discourses in which they occur, or to Luke himself. 

Though Mark usually quotes the Greek version, occasionally sup- 
plying from it clauses and words which are wanting in the other 
Gospels, yet he does not appear to have been entirely dependent 
on it. There are some traces of his acquaintance with the Hebrew. 
What have been thought appearances of his dependence on Matthew, 
show rather that the translator of Matthew into Greek used Mark's 
Gospel, and countenance the supposition of some that Mark him- 
self translated the first Gospel from the Hebrew. 

He who committed to writing the Epistle to the Hebrews, whether 
Luke or another, has followed the Septuagint exclusively, even where 
it differs materially from the Hebrew text. He was wholly depend- 
ent upon it. Hence he could not but follow it where it gave an 
erroneous representation of the Hebrew. Tholuck even thinks that 
the writer participated in the Alexandrine view respecting the in- 
spiration of the translators, because passages where God is not the 
speaker are cited as the words of God, or of the Holy Ghost. Com- 
pare i. 6, 7, 8., iv. 4. 7., vii. 21., iii. 7. 10. lo. 1 

We have thus seen that the New Testament writers, less solicitous 
about the form than the substance of Scripture, quoted freely from 
memory, altering, abridging, adding, condensing, where they wished 
to make a passage more suitable to their purpose ; and commonly 
following the Greek version. Some were more dependent on the 
LXX., others less so. Some occasionally departed from it and fol- 
lowed the Hebrew in preference ; while others adopted the Greek, 
where a different course might have been better. The knowledge 
and attainments of the sacred writers were different — their mental 
habitudes and tastes dissimilar — and the external form of their cita- 
tions differ accordingly. 

In addition to these circumstances, the form of their quotations 
was influenced by the persons whom they addressed. Matthew Avrote 

1 See Das Alte Testament im Neuen Testament, Beilage I., p. 57., fourth edition. 

N 4 



184 Biblical Criticism. 

his Gospel principally for the use of Jewish converts. Mark had 
Gentiles more than Jews in view. The design of Luke embraced 
chiefly the former. Thus from a comparison of Matt. xix. 18, 19.; 
Mark x. 19.; Luke xviii. 20., we infer that the discrepancies of 
quotation arise in part from the state of the persons addressed. Mat- 
thew alone has, " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself," in 
opposition to the contracted notions of the Jews. In Mark alone is 
the clause " defraud not." The Romans were addicted to injustice. 

In like manner in the different Epistles, the same passage is quoted 
from the Old Testament in a different manner, even by the same 
writer, as in Eph. vi. 1 — 3. ; Col. iii. 20. The apostle sets be- 
fore the Ephesians as a motive to the performance of the duty, the 
promise annexed to its observance. But in writing to the Colossians, 
whom he had not himself instructed and who were not well acquainted 
with the Old Testament, he does not allude to the law. 

The same truth is exemplified by a comparison of Rom. ix. 33.; 
1 Pet. ii. 6., where the words are adapted to the state of the different 
parties addressed. 1 

The different objects the writers had in view, had also much in- 
fluence on the form of their citations. According to the nature of 
their arguments or illustrations, do they quote passages. If they 
design to make a comment or criticism on the language of the 
original, the author's name is usually mentioned, or a specific refer- 
ence inserted to the work in which the passage is contained. The 
words also are closely followed. An example may be seen in Heb. 
iv. 7. from Psal. xcv. 7, 8., where the writer's object is to show that 
the rest offered to believers is of a spiritual nature. But if the object 
be to introduce variety into a train of argument, the original is cited 
less exactly. So in Heb. xii. 20, 21., where the general sense only of 
the passages referred to is given. So too in 2 Pet. ii. 22., where a pro- 
verbial saying from the Scriptures is introduced into an illustration 
for the sake of variety, the meaning is given without any express 
reference to the Old Testament Scriptures. 

Propositions of a general nature, or such as express abstract truths, 
may be incorporated into various trains of reasoning. On them veiy 
little change can be made, although their application is as diverse as 
the connexion in which they occur. Thus Hab. ii. 4. is cited three times, 
always in a different argument. Yet it is quoted in the same manner. 

In quoting passages to show the fulfilment of prophecy respecting 
the Saviour, it was not needful to adhere verbatim to the Old Testa- 
ment. It was enough to present the true meaning, though in different 
w T ords. 

In short, when we examine cited passages we perceive that every 
mode of quotation has been employed, from the exactest to the most 
loose — from a strictly verbal form to the widest paraphrase. Con- 
siderable liberties are taken with the original, whether it be the 
Greek version, or the Hebrew. But with all these phenomena, it 
cannot be said with truth, that the Old Testament has been falsified. 
No where has a passage been interpreted- contrary to the sense it wa; 
intended to bear. Places have been differently applied. 2 

1 See Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics,.pp. 46G, 467. 3 Ibid. 



On the external Form of Quotations. 185 

We have seen a classification of all the quotations of the New 
Testament according to their external form. In the first place, an 
enumeration is given of those taken from the Hebrew Scriptures 
arranged under various heads according to the state of their agree- 
ment with the original. In the next place is given a like classification 
of those taken from the Septuagint version, similarly arranged under 
different heads in proportion to their accordance with the original. 
Randolph has given two classifications of this kind, and Home fol- 
lowed him. But we are persuaded that such classifications are wholly- 
useless. And not only are they useless — they give an erroneous 
idea of the state of the case. To arrange quotations in the way indi- 
cated is simply an impossibility. Whoever attempts to do so, proceeds 
by conjecture, and must be as often wrong as right. The writers 
cited for the most part from memory. They often reproduced pas- 
sages in the form which they had received from tradition as delivered 
orally from one to another. Some of them, as Paul, altered passages 
more or less, to bring them nearer the Hebrew, or to adapt them to 
his purpose. The Hebrew text few of them were probably acquainted 
with. They neither had it before them, nor could they have under- 
stood it if they had. They were accustomed to the Greek version. 
But since they usually quoted it from memory, it is worse than use- 
less to arrange their citations as they happen to agree more or less 
nearly with the Greek. There must have been some arbitrariness in 
the use of such words as they gave the quotation in, since they de- 
pended on memory. If so, it is assigning an importance to this 
arbitrariness which it should not have, to adjust its phenomena by a 
fixed standard. Hence we shall not attempt an enumeration of 
quotations according to their external form as Randolph did, who 
classified them thus : — 

1. Citations agreeing exactly with the Hebrew. 

2. agreeing nearly with Hebrew. 

3. agreeing in sense with Hebrew, but not in words. 

4. onvino; the general sense, but abridging; or adding to it. 

CO O " o o ( o 

5. taken from several passages of Sacred Scripture. 

6. differing from Hebrew, but agreeing with Septuagint. 

7. Citations where we have reason to suspect that the Apostles 
either read the Hebrew differently, or put some sense upon the words 
different from what our Lexicons express. 

8. Places where the Hebrew seems to be corrupted. 

9. Xot properly citations, but references or allusions. 

1. Agreeing verbatim with Septuagint, or only changing the 
person, &c. 

2. Taken from Septuagint, but with some variation. 

3. Agreeing in sense but not in words with Septuagint. 

4. Differing from Septuagint, but agreeing exactly or nearly 

with Hebrew. 

5. Differing both from Septuagint and from Hebrew, and 

taken probably from some other translation or paraphrase. l 
When we look at the lists under these, we see them full of incor- 

See pp. 25, 26. 



186 Biblical Criticism. 

rectness. No one could have avoided this ; and therefore with all 
his carefulness in the matter, the whole is a failure. Great fallacy 
pervades the entire arrangement. 1 



CHAP. XXXII. 

ON THE INTERNAL FORM OF QUOTATIONS. 

Here we shall first speak of the use made of the Old Testament by 
Jesus Christ and the apostles. 

Neither Jesus nor the apostles have laid down principles on which 
they proceeded in the interpretation of the Old Testament. It may 
therefore appear impossible at first sight to discover their hermeneu- 
tics. But we may judge from the sense which they give to the 
citations of the Old Testament, the manner in which they apply 
them, and their view of the value of the ancient dispensation as 
intimately connected with the new, how they interpreted the former. 
To. borrow an epithet from Beck 2 , theirs may be called the pneumatic 
interpretation. It is neither the grammatico-historical which stops at 
the letter, endeavouring to ascertain the local and temporary phy- 
siognomy of a passage ; nor is it the allegorical which finds accidental 
analogies in and derives hidden senses from the written words, pro- 
ceeding arbitrarily and without fixed principles. The ■pneumatic or 
spiritual penetrates into the interior sense. Rejecting the notion 
that there are several senses in one and the same passage, it is not 
satisfied with the one application which it has received under the 
ancient economy, but fixes the universal type which gives it a 
normal signification for all ages, and determines the value belong- 
ing to it in relation to the time of the irXripwcns in Christ Jesus. 
Christ and his apostles showed what application the word of God 
confined within the narrow limits of a preparatory dispensation re- 
ceived in the new and spiritual one. Agreeably to their method of 
interpretation, precepts under the old economy contained the germs 
of eternal and universal laws — promises, a secret purpose which 
should be discovered at the time of the accomplishment. All history 
becomes a type which is realised in all ages ; and every institution a 
symbol representing an eternal truth. There is thus an organic, 
essential unity between the Old and New Testament providentially 
linking together all parts of Scripture, and giving each its theological 
character. Its due proportion and rank are assigned to every passage 
viewed in relation to the economy of salvation accomplished and 
perfected in Christ Jesus the chief corner-stone. By virtue of this 
organic parallelism of both Testaments, the historical authority of 
Scripture is preserved, on the one hand; and on the other, the idea 

1 See Dangler's Exarnen des Citations Messianiques, pp. 4, 5. 

2 Versuch eincr pneumatisch-hermeneutischen Entwickelung des 9 Capitels im Br. an 
die Roemer. Appendix. 



On the internal Form of Quotations. 187 

of arbitrary Jewish allegorising and Jewish accommodation obviated. 
It maintains a just medium between both. 

In adopting this spiritual, organic view of the quotations in the 
Old Testament, we are countenanced by theologians of different 
creeds. De Wette, Bleek, Billroth, Olshausen, Hofmann, Hengsten- 
berg, Beck, Otto von Gerlach, Teichler, Tholuck, Weiss and other 
recent divines maintain it in a variety of forms. 

We shall now give some examples of the interpretation specified, 
which may serve to make it more obvious to the apprehension of the 
reader. 

In Matt. xxii. 31. — 33., Jesus proves to the Sadducees the resurrec- 
tion of the dead, from a passage in Exod. iii. 6., where God said to 
Moses : " I am the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob." When 
Jehovah addressed Moses at the burning bush, he did not mean to 
speak of the resurrection of the dead. But yet that idea is involved 
in the declaration. God cannot enter into an intimate connexion 
with men in which he is said to be their God, if they be merely 
transitory, short-lived beings. The communion he holds with them, 
like all divine communion, is not bounded by time. It is everlasting. 
Hence the patriarchs with whom he deigned to hold near fellowship, 
were regarded as immortal by that very circumstance. Accordingly 
Christ justly inferred from this passage the doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion ; since God is not the God of the dead, i. e., of uncleanness and 
corruption, but of the living. The full sense of the words is educed 
in this interpretation. 

In John, x. 34, 35., Christ replies to the charge of the Jews against 
him that he made himself God, by quoting Psal. lxxxii. verse, 6., 
" I have said, ye are gods," adding, that the Scripture cannot be broken. 
He educes a profound sense from the words. The saying " ye are 
gods," must be fully realised like all Scripture. It is realised in my 
person. I am the son of God, like to him in every respect. If 
judges are gods and sons of the Most High, surely the title much more 
belongs to me. 

In Eph. v. 32., the apostle Paul looks upon marriage as a 
symbol of the communion existing between Christ and his church, 
applying to the latter the passage in Gen. ii. 23. By virtue of an 
interpretation winch connects the Old Testament with the New in 
divinely intended parallels he means to express the idea, that marriage, 
in which earthly love attains its culminating point, is but an imper- 
fect type of a sublimer union existing between Christ and his church. 

In 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10., a parallel is drawn between the ox that was 
not to be muzzled while treading out the corn, and the apostles who 
laboured in the church of Christ. The passage in Deut. xxv. 4., re- 
ferred to by Paul, is considered and applied in its general aspect. 
The truth it involves is shown to refer to apostles and preachers of the 
gospel, as well as to the lower animals. 

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews follows the same method 
of interpretation. Thus in xi. 13., he infers from the expression of 
the patriarchs, " we are strangers and pilgrims in this land" (Gen. 
xxiii. 4., xlvii. 9.), that they hoped to arrive at the heavenly country 



188 Biblical Criticism. 

after death, Doubtless the patriarchs in uttering such a sentiment 
had a vague longing for a better inheritance. 1 

But it is impossible to discuss the subject satisfactorily as long as 
Christ and the New Testament writers are considered together. The 
difficulties inherent in it are either hidden or increased by such a 
method. It is necessary to distinguish the hermeneutical procedure 
of Christ, the apostles, Paul, and the writer of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. For while all may be grouped together in their general 
mode of dealing with the Old Testament, they can also be separated. 
The use they make of the Old Testament is not exactly the same. 
The application of it, for example, by Paul, is far inferior in depth, 
comprehensiveness, and spirituality, to that which characterises the 
Saviour. Again, there are a subtilty and insight into the Old Testa- 
ment — a perception of the internal connexion between it and the 
New, in Paul, which are not found in the evangelists. The parallels 
drawn by the latter between various parts of the two economies, and 
the divine intention they find in these parallels are peculiar. On the 
other hand, there is a difference between the customary application 
of the Old Testament in the Epistle to the Hebrews and that found 
in the Pauline Epistles. It is inferior to the Pauline, because the 
historical sense is less regarded. It is liomiletic and practical rather 
than strictly exegetical. 2 

In the evangelists, we commonly find quotations of prophecies pro- 
perly so called, or of typical parallels. In them an objective con- 
nexion between some declaration or event in the Old Testament and 
a corresponding fact in the New Testament is intimated. They bring 
both into a union resulting from the divine purpose. Regarding 
them as thus linked together in providence, they show the adaptation 
of the one to the other. Thus they join together the harmonising 
parts of one system. 

With respect to citations introduced by the formula Xva or o Trees 
7r\7)poo9f}, which are frequent in the Gospels, either a direct prophecy 
or a viTQvoLa is indicated. The fulfilment in such cases is regarded as 
the effect of divine intention, for the conjunctions Xva and ottos are 
telic not echatic. Whether prophecies, or typical parallels be meant, 
can only be determined by a minute attention to each particular cita- 
tion. We believe that prophecies are referred to in Matt. i. 22., iv. 
14., xxi. 4., xxvii. 9, 35 ; John, xii. 15. 38—40., xix. 24. 37. And 
here let us remark, that it not necessary, as Palfrey argues, to cite 
the precise words of a prophecy, when its fulfilment is pointed out in 
the New Testament. In explaining away predictions out of these 
places in Matthew and John, we find great stress laid by him on this 
circumstance. But it is not by any means of the importance he 
attaches to it. It is sufficient if the true sense of a prophecy quoted 
be given in words adequate to that object. If the terms be such as 
plainly show its meaning, that is enough. The New Testament 
authors were not accustomed to cite the precise words of the Old 
Testament. They quoted freely, and from memory. Nor can it be 

1 See Weiss's Examen des Citations de 1'ancien Testament, p. 31., el seqq. 

2 See Tholuck's Das Alte Testament, u. s. w., §§ 3, 4, 5. 



On the internal Form of Quotations. 139 

shown that they should have departed from their customary method 
in cases where they pointed out the fulfilment of prophecies. It ia 
unreasonable to expect it of them. The conditions of the case were 
satisfied by citing the prophetic passages in words sufficiently obvious 
to show their right import. And this is what they uniformly did. 

On the other hand, typical parallels, in which a inrovoia is con- 
cealed, are in Matt. ii. 15. 23., viii. 17.; John, xi. 51., xviii. 9. 
How little perception of a divine virovoia, or of typical parallels 
such superficial writers as Palfrey have, is obvious from his 
remarks on Matt. ii. 15. " So clear is this case that I consider the 
text as having the highest importance in its bearing on the general 
argument respecting the force of quotations from the Old Testament 
in the New. If Matthew, calling to mind a passage of Hosea, in 
which, in terms so plain that Matthew could not misunderstand them, 
the exodus of the people was referred to historically, could quote the 
words in reference to an event seven or eight hundred years subse- 
quent to the quoted writer, then it is as certain as any thing of the 
kind can be, that Matthew did not intend to represent that event as 
accomplishing a prediction contained in those words. And if, in such 
a case as this, when the supposition of prediction accomplished is ab- 
solutely preposterous and out of the question, the Evangelist could 
introduce his quotation with the formal words, " that it might be ful- 
filled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet," then it follows 
that in no case whatever does the formality of that introduction 
permit us to infer that the Evangelist points to the words which he 
quotes as containing a prediction, of which events have brought 
about the accomplishment." (pp. 41, 42.) 

From the frequent use of iva or ottws ifkrjpwdf) in this manner, 
we see the teleology of the evangelists. They were accustomed 
to refer to an overruling providence, whereby God brings events 
to pass so as to fulfil his designs. They rise above the bare sequence 
of events. Each important result is regarded as ordered and in- 
tended of God. They view events and circumstances with con- 
stant reference to the divine arrangements. Hence they frequently 
use iva or ottcos where man, looking only at the surface and be- 
holding mere secondary causes, would have employed wars. The 
telic use of iva or ottcos with the subjunctive ifk^pwdfj, is now 
so well established, that it would be unnecessary to turn aside from 
the subject to discuss and defend it, When it is maintained by 
Fritzsche, Winer, De Wette, Meyer, Olshausen, Bretschneider, 
Wahl, Tholuck, as it was formerly by Bengel too, we need scarcely 
stop to notice the contrary opinion of Tittmann, Stuart, Bobinson, 
and Palfrey, who cling to the ecbatic usage. Nothing can be feebler 
than the philological analysis of Iva and the corresponding \Viy> given 
by the last-named writer ; for his examples, as far as they are really 
such, clearly imply intention on the part of the Divine Being ; and 
he should have known that Gesenius has examined and shown the 
telic usage of the Hebrew conjunction on all occasions. Nothing can 
be farther from the truth than to resolve this kind of citations into 
" legitimate rhetorical accommodations," without any thing superna- 



190 Biblical Criticism. 

tural being meant. Extended remarks on the point will be found in 
Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics, to which the reader is referred. 1 

Here a question has been raised, whether the writers being 
Hebrews and attached to the Hebrew teleology, did not sometimes 
carry their own subjectivity into these matters. In their disposition 
to find parallels in the Old Testament — outward prefigurations of 
spiritual things connected with the divine economy, — did they not 
occasionally confound consequences with divine designs? The spiritual 
mind is prone to such typology. It makes parallelising applications 
by the very force of religious feeling. Looking at single phenomena 
in nature and in history, it is liable to attribute to them direct objects 
in the divine mind ; whereas, nothing is designed to serve one solitary 
purpose, but all events are so connected with one another as to serve 
various ends in their mutual relations. What may be thought by us 
the purpose intended to be accomplished, may not even be the 
nearest much less the sole one. The question resolves itself into the 
extent of the apostles' insipiration, which it would be out of place to 
discuss here. The only test that can be used to determine whether 
in any instance the inrovoia supposed to lie in an Old Testament pass- 
age be objectively true — a divinely intended thing — must be sought in 
the circumstance of the supposed spiritual prefiguration harmonising 
with or contradicting the historical sense. If it refuse to coincide 
with the right meaning of the passage, it is of a purely subjective 
character, having no reality except in the writer's own ideas. But if 
the true historical sense be preserved, the parallel is objective and was 
divinely intended. According to this criterion, Tholuck and others 
find in John,xi. 51.,xviii. 9.; Matth. viii. 17. a imovota created by the 
writers' own subjectivity. 

In the writings of Paul, quotations from the Old Testament are 
not introduced by the formula Xva vrkripwOfi ; but either by Kadcos 
rysypaiTTai, or sIttsv, or by no preface. Most of them are not predictions, 
as Riickert and Fritzsche supposed, but simple accommodations 
serving as a substratum for the writer's own ideas. They are inter- 
woven with his own argumentation for the purpose of illustration 
and ornament. Examples may be found in Rom. ii. 24., iii. 4. 10. 
18., viii. 36., ix. 13. 15. 33., x. 7, 8. 11. 13. 18., xi. 8., xv. 3. 
21.; 1 Cor. i. 19. 31., ii. 9., iii. 19. 20., xiv. 21., xv. 25. 54, 55. ; 
2 Cor. iv. 13., vi. 2. 16. 18., viii. 15., ix. 9. ; Gal. iv. 27. ; Eph. iv. 8. 
26. 31. In these instances the apostle commonly alters the words 
of the text that they may be applicable to his purpose. But 1 Cor. 
xv. 27. appears to be quoted as a prophecy. 2 

In thus employing the Old Testament a question has been raised 
in relation to the historical accuracy of the Pauline hermeneutics. 
It cannot be denied that he has extracted more from places in the 
Old Testament than the historical sense appears to allow. But it 
will be found, on attentive examination, that he has put no idea 
into a passage which does not lie in it in germ. He has always 
developed the fundamental idea with profound insight into the mani- 

1 See Palfrey's Relation between Judaism and Christianity, pp. 19., et seqq. 

2 Tholuck, pp. 34. , et seqq. 



On the Internal Form of Quotations. 1 9 1 

fold applications of which it is capable. Though his analogies in 
the Old Testament may sometimes appear far-fetched and arbitrary, 
they are not really so. The original and true sense is simply re- 
stricted or enlarged in his application of it, without being injured. 
Thus in interpreting the blessing, Gal. iii. 8. ; in the argumenta- 
tion founded on the fact that the patriarch received circumcision 
as the seal of his faith, Rom. iv. 11. ; in the proof founded on the 
name " father of many nations," Rom. iv. 17.; and in showing the 
calling of the Gentiles from passages which refer to apostate Israel, 
Rom. ix. 25, 26. ; as well as in the direct reference of the stone of 
stumbling to Christ, Rom. ix. 33. ; there is no improper or arbitrary 
turning of the original passages to things with which they have not 
a real analogy. The apostle develops and applies the original ideas 
inherent in the Old Testament in a way which shows his deep in- 
sight into their manifold applications. 1 The form indeed of his inter- 
pretation is such as evinces the Jewish dialectician. The influence 
of Rabbinical training and cultivation may be observed in the mode 
in which he brings forth the ideas contained in the Old Testament. 
Spiritual depth and sagacity of mind were sharpened by an ingenious 
logic which extracted fanciful notions out of words. But the essence 
of the interpretation is not injuriously affected by Rabbinical learning. 
That is free from the charge of arbitrary and tasteless allegorising. 

It must not be concealed, however, that the charge of falling into 
the subtilties of Rabbinical interpretation has been made against the 
apostle of the Gentiles. It has been thought by commentators like 
Riiekert, Meyer, and De Wette, that he sometimes insisted too 
much on the letter so as to extract from it a sense both far-fetched 
and unnatural. In proof of this such passages as 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10., 
x. 5. ; Gal. iv. 24., iii. 16. are referred to. But in 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10. 
a virovoia is evidently presupposed by the apostle in the Old Testa- 
ment passage referred to. We cannot believe with De Wette, that 
the historical sense is taken away from the injunction recorded in 
Deuteronomy, xxv. 4. ; that sense is enlarged or generalised, as Kling 2 
rightly holds. In x. 5. he follows no Jewish legend, as has been 
asserted, for the existence of a legend among the Jews purporting 
that the water from the rock followed the Israelites forty years 
through the wilderness, is visionary. The apostle's thoughts simply 
pass from the type to the antitype — from the water that gushed out 
of the flinty rock, to the spiritual water it prefigured, and of which 
the people in the wilderness partook. Palfrey 3 understands the word 
follow in this place to denote repeated occurrence. " The rock followed 
them because they drank from it at different times." The Greek 
word forbids this sense. It is aicoXovdew, which the apostle uses, 
meaning to accompany or attend. Granville Penn 4 also mistook the 
true import of the verb. With regard to Gal. iv. 24., we find in 
it an example of typical interpretation. It is allegory, not in the 
technical sense of the word, but simply in the JS T ew Testament sense 

1 Tholnck, p. 37. 2 Studien imd Kritiken for 1839, p. 83-1. 

3 Relation between Judaism and Christianity, p. 270. 
* Annotations to the Book of the New Covenant, p. 358. 



192 Biblical Criticism. 

of it, i. c. a type. Hence the comparison should not be carried out, 
as though there were a correspondence in all points. 1 

But Gal. iii. 16. has greater difficulty. The charge of Rabbinical 
interpretation applies more plausibly to it than to any other passage. 
Indeed Winer, Usteri, Riickert, Meyer, and De Wette say that the 
apostle has given an erroneous interpretation, such as was not unusual 
with the Jews. Two faults are here attributed to Paul's citation and 
reasoning ; first, that he has erroneously referred the collective noun 
VII in the prophecy made to Abraham, to one individual, viz. Christ, 
and secondly, that he has insisted on the singular O as if it could 
mean nothing else but an individual; whereas both in Hebrew and in 
Greek it is very often employed collectively. To these allegations 
it may be briefly replied that the apostle was not ignorant of the 
fact that (TiTspfxa denotes a collection of individuals, as may be seen in 
Romans, iv. 16., ix. 8. But he also knew that it can only denote a 
collection of individuals belonging to one and the same species; whereas 
to designate individuals of different species, D^jnt, or airipfjuaTa was 
employed. It is thus that the Chaldee word KJTiT has often in the 
plural |T1T in the sense of race or posterity. The apostle wished to 
say, that the airspfia does not apply to all the descendants of Abra- 
ham of whatever kind or character they be ; not rot? cnrspfiacriv ; 
but solely to those to whom the promise was made — those of like 
faith with Abraham himself, i. e. his spiritual offspring, tS airsppbari. 
But why does the apostle limit the airsppua to Christ ? Why does 
he not explain it of Christians ? Because xP LaT °s i§ here regarded as 
the believing prosterity of Abraham. Christ is taken as their re- 
presentative inasmuch as with him they form as it were but one 
person. They are included in him as part of his mystical body. 
The apostle did not mean to take Christ as an individual ; but he 
mentions him as the chief of the Church which is his body. This 
interpretation is favoured by what is written in this very epistle, for 
in the 28th and 29th verses of the third chapter it is said, " If ye be 
Christ's, ye are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise." 
Those who wish to see a full and ample justification of the apostle 
deduced from a lengthened explanation of the quotation before us 
may be referred to Tholuck's essay, where it is excellently illustrated. 
De Wette indeed still objects to his explanation as untenable; but his 
arguments are not formidable, for he allows that Paul proceeds on 
the true idea that the promises made to Abraham were fulfilled in 
Christ. We can see no real difficulty in that which this commen- 
tator stumbles at, viz. that whereas Christians are the airsp/jba in 
verse 29. and also in Romans, iv. 13. 16., the personal Christ is here 
the cnr&ppua. For Christ, xpiaTos, is not taken apart from his spiritual 
body, but as the head and representative of it ; just as SHI in the 
singular number in Genesis, iii. 15., denotes Messiah including all 
believers. 

There is nothing analogous to this interpretation of the apostle in 
the writings of the Rabbins. A wide difference exists between it 

1 Tholuck, p. 39. etseqq. 



On the Internal Form of Quotations. 193 

and any example capable of being adduced as similar. How unlike 
to it is the following, brought forward by Hartmann and Doepke l as 
entirely akin to it. In the San. cap. iv. § 5. it is prescribed with 
relation to criminal proceedings, that the witnesses should be ex- 
horted not to bring forward an accusation unless they knew it to be 
well-founded ; for in other proceedings a fault may be expiated, but 
in criminal ones the crime is transmitted to all eternity to the 
descendants of him who has committed it, because it is said in Scrip- 
ture (Gen. iv. 10.) "the voice of thy brother's blood cries to heaven." 
The author rests on the plural Cp^ to signify that it is the blood of 
Abel and that of his descendants ; otherwise Moses would have 
put &% This is a mere play on words. Ingenuity is thus exercised in 
drawing from the letter of Scripture what is not contained in it. 
How different from the manner of the apostle, even in the passage 
in the Galatian epistle. He finds in the Old Testament a profound 
truth implied in the promise made to Abraham — a truth which 
ought to be derived from it according to the divine intention ; though 
the writer of Genesis did not see in the singular in?, the idea dis- 
covered by Paul at the time of the accomplishment of the promise. 

With regard to the types and parallels of the Old Testament which 
are employed by the apostle, the question whether they were so 
arranged in the divine purpose as to intimate the connection which 
he makes between them and New Testament phenomena, is not of 
difficult solution. Amid the various uses which the apostle makes of 
the Old Testament and the parallels he draws, we cannot believe 
that all his parallels are true types so designed of God. In some 
cases they must be attributed to the subjectivity of the apostle him- 
self. They are his own applications of the Old Testament. This is 
not obscurely intimated by himself in Eph. v. 32. in the words, 
" but I speak concerning Christ." So too in Rom. xv. 3., he gives 
his own idea, justifying it by the remark that every thing contained 
in the Old Testament serves for our instruction. In 1 Cor. x. 6., 
tvttoc does not mean what is now commonly understood by type, but 
sign, warning-example. 

The author of the epistle to the Hebrews makes as much use of the 
Old Testament as the apostle Paul. Nor is his method of employing 
it essentially different. There is indeed a perceptible difference ; but 
it is not so great as has sometimes been represented. His herme- 
neutics have often been compared with Philo's, so that even the 
direct influence of the latter upon them has been asserted by Bleek 
and others. But this is incapable of proof, as Tholuck has well re- 
marked. 2 There is a certain Alexandrine complexion about his use 
of the Old Testament as well as his style which distinguishes them 
from Paul's ; but that is far from a direct use of Philo's writings. 
Rabbinic dialectics cannot be traced in it as in Paul's method. It is 
more Hellenic than Jewish — more ideal and arbitrary than the 
Pauline. It is evident that the writer was dependent on the Sep- 
tuagint ; and since he could not have recourse to the Hebrew, as the 

1 Hermeneutik, p. 177. 2 Page 51. 

VOL. II. O 



194 Biblical Criticism. 

apostle had in the case of important differences between it and the 
Greek version, he employed the latter even where it is incorrect, as 
in ii. 7., x. 5. 

Some of his citations are very remarkable and puzzling. Perhaps 
those which will strike the expositor as most singular are chap. i. 6., 
and 10 — 12. ; the former taken from Psal. xcvii. 7., and the latter 
from Psal. cii. 25, &c. In regard to the words " and let all the 
angels of God worship him," we must believe that they are a direct 
application of the words "worship him, all ye gods," in Psal. xcvii. 7., 
to Christ. The writer cites them as one of his proofs of the dignity 
of Messiah. Any attempt to regard the passage as an accommodation 
of the Psalmist's language appears to us utterly nugatory. One of 
the latest commentators on the Psalms appears to us to explain the 
citation most arbitrarily and incorrectly. " These words," says he, 
" are not applied to Christ directly in Heb. i. 6. It is merely said 
that when God sends his Son into the world, he may be understood 
as saying again (jraXcv) of him, what is here said of himself, to wit, 
that even the false gods are required to worship him, much more the 
angels who have real existence. The passage was no doubt suggested 
to the mind of the New Testament writer by the fact that the Sep- 
tuagint renders gods by angels." 1 In opposition to these remarks, 
we are convinced that every unbiassed reader will conclude that the 
New Testament writer adduces the words as proof. We explain the 
citation of Psal. cii. 25. &c. in Heb. i. 10 — 12., in the same manner. 
The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews directly applies the words 
to Christ, adducing them as a proof of His superiority to the angels. 
How the original can be properly employed in this manner, it is very 
difficult to see. Tholuck, who is quite aware of the puzzling nature 
of both citations, mentions as a conjecture that the subject of the two 
Psalms (xcvii. and cii.) was assumed by the Jews to be Messiah, and 
that therefore the writer counts upon the assent of his readers in so 
using them; in other words, that he employs the argumentum ad 
hominem. But he does not approve of it. Rather does he hold the 
Messianic Exposition of the Psalms to be the writer's own pecu- 
liarity, to be accounted for by the rhetorical and homiletical character 
of the epistle. 2 

These observations will prepare the reader for believing that the 
types, prophecies, and parallels which the writer of the epistle finds 
in the Old Testament are more frequently of a subjective character 
than the Pauline. The Old Testament is commonly employed as a 
vehicle of his own ideas — a substratum of his own thoughts. The 
historical sense is less regarded. Passages are applied homiletically . 
Penetrated as he was with a profound sense of the depth of meaning 
lying in the Old Testament or deducible from it, he does not con- 
sider whether direct prophecy or typical parallel or subjective appli- 
cation, should be carefully distinguished, but assumes a divine in- 
tention in the passage if it be capable of a Christian application. He 
converts the subjective application into an objective and divinely 

1 See Alexander on the Psalms, vol. ii. p. 337. 

2 Das Alte Testament im Neuen Testament, p. 54. 



On the Internal Form of Quotations. 195 

intended one, as is apparent in xi. 15, 16., iv. 8. This is not done 
by Paul. 1 

Those alone who have minutely investigated the quotations found 
in the New Testament are sensible of the difficulty attending a 
classification of them according to their internal form. Indeed they 
are so diverse from one another — those in the Gospels, in Paul, and 
in the epistle to the Hebrews being clearly distinguishable in their 
general character, while individual ones even in the same writer or 
epistle have their characteristic peculiarities — that it is impossible to 
classify them. Any list we have seen so arranged has appeared to 
us to convey very erroneous ideas ; the texts grouped together under 
one head being very often most diverse. It is better to refrain alto- 
gether from classification than to present such an one as has been 
given by Rosenmiiller, or the better one elaborated by Home, with 
his enumeration of all the texts belonging to each head. The abso- 
lute hopelessness of the task forbids censure of these well-meant 
efforts. 

We can hardly however refrain from decided objection to the 
recent classification by Palfrey, which arranges quotations thus : — 

1. " Passages which really were supernatural predictions, and 
really are referred to as such." He considers every instance of this 
class of references to be to the Pentateuch and not to any other part 
of Old Testament Scripture. But such an hypothesis is arbitrary 
and false. 

2. In the second class " nothing but a legitimate rhetorical accom- 
modation is designed." We object decidedly to his putting places 
like Matt. i. 22, 23., into this class. 

3. The third class " consists of those which are produced as refer- 
ences to, or proof of, the opinions entertained in ancient times con- 
cerning the Messiah who was eventually to appear." 

4. The fourth class " consists rather of references to the general 
tenor of the Old Testament." 2 

Were we disposed to attempt any classification we should make 
the following : — 

1 . Prophecies direct or typical. 

2. Typical parallels. 

3. Parallels in which a passage is applied or adapted to a particular 
end by the New Testament writer for the purpose of illustrating or 
enforcing a sentiment advanced. 

4. Mere allusions or references to the Old Testament, without 
express or formal quotation. 

To range all the passages properly under one or other of these 
heads would be a task requiring the separate examination of each in 
the light of the most recent comments made upon them, and the 
very various expositions they have received, with a refutation of the 
unfavourable view taken of the procedure of the writers in some 
cases, by able interpreters. And after the best attention that could 
be given to them individually, considerable doubt would exist as to 

1 Das Alte Testament im Neuen Testament, p. 56. 

2 See Palfrey's Relation between Judaism and Christianity, p. 18. et seqq. 



196 Biblical Criticism. 

some whether they should belong to the first or second head; while 
others would perplex the critic in assigning them either to the second 
or third. We shall give an example of each class. 

1. The 2nd and 110th Psalms contain prophecies of Christ and 
his kingdom. Both are applied to Him in the New Testament in 
such a manner as shows that they are properly interpreted in that 
method. Whether they are directly Messianic, as most commentators 
believe, or typically Messianic only as Bleek supposes, is of no con- 
sequence at present. In either case they belong to the Messianic 
class as prophetic. Hence in Acts, iv. 25, 26.; Heb. i. 13., x. 13., the 
citations consist of prophecies whose fulfilment is shown. Matt. iv. 14. 
affords an example of the same class. So also Matt. i. 22., though 
there are difficulties connected with this passage not yet perhaps 
fully solved. These are inherent in the context of the original, 
Isa. vii. 14.; and though since Hengstenberg ; Drechsler, Reinke, 
Ewald, Hofmann, Meier, Alexander (Commentary on Isaiah) have 
attempted to resolve them, all have been unsuccessful. 

2. According to Matt. xiii. 35., a typical parallel is pointed out. 
The evangelist supposes that a virovoia intended by God lies in the 
words of Psal. lxxviii. 2. In Gal. iv. 24., another example occurs. 
In like manner Matt. ii. 15. is an example. From Isa. xlix. 3., we 
see that Israel was a type of Messiah. Messiah the antitype is the 
absolute son and servant of God. This Son of God, as well as the 
antitype, must go to Egypt. 

3. An example of quotation belonging to the third class occurs in 
Rom. ii. 24. Several words are added to the Septuagint version by 
the apostle, in order to adapt the passage to his purpose. The ori- 
ginal and proper sense of the passage is, that Jehovah's name was 
blasphemed through the oppression of the Jews. But here it is 
altered so as to express the idea that Jehovah was blasphemed among 
the Gentiles because of the vicious conduct of the Jews. Other 
examples are found in 1 Cor. i. 19. 31. 

Into this third class, many put various passages which have the 
formula Iva or orrws 7r\r}pco6fj prefixed. But all such belong to the 
second, at least in the view of the writers quoting them. We do not 
infer this merely or solely from the verb irXrjpoco, to fulfil ; but from 
the conjunction associated with it, bearing as it always does a telic 
signification. Even a quotation with tots E7r\r]p(t)0r] prefixed we 
believe to have been a typical parallel in the view of the writer, as 
in Matt. ii. 17, 18., cited from Jer. xxxi. 15. The prophet repre- 
sents in figurative language Rachel deploring the loss of her children 
and indulging in inconsolable grief on their account. When Herod 
imbrued his hands in the blood of the innocents in Bethlehem and 
its vicinity, the New Testament writer, quoting Jeremiah's words, 
Avishes it to be understood, not merely that he applies those words by 
way of pertinent illustration to such a cruel scene, but that the one 
event foreshadowed the other. The full meaning of the prophet's 
language was not educed till the later occurrence took place. The 
one was connected with the other as a a/cia indicates the substance. 
The evangelist thus adapted the words of the Old Testament to 



On the Internal Form of Quotations. 197 

another event, because he believed that they were intended to adum- 
brate it. 1 

If it be asked, do all citations having the phrase was fulfilled 
indicate on the part of the writer divine adaptation of one thing to 
another or realisation which he believed to be providential, we 
should reply in the affirmative. Such is the theology of the evangelists. 
As to the explanation of was fulfilled, which regards it simply as a 
rhetorical accommodation implying no more than that icords used by 
an ancient icriter might be adopted as applicable to circumstances after- 
wards occurring, we look upon it as defective and therefore erroneous. 
The transition is easy to include in the same explanation that it might 
be fulfilled, which many expositors consistently do; and then the way 
is clear for holding that real predictions so introduced are not pre- 
dictions at all, but fall under the head of rhetorical adaptations. 
Palfrey is consistent in following out the explanation to its legitimate 
extent, and in boldly denying such places as Matt. i. 22, 23., xxi. 4, 
&c, to be prophecies. Supernatural predictions almost disappear 
from the New Testament under the influence of this convenient 
device of rhetoric. And why do not other interpreters proceed as 
far ? Doubtless they are afraid to do so. Startled at the appalling- 
length to Avhich they may be carried by their favourite expedient, 
they stop short with saying that the word fulfilled means the accom- 
plishment of a prediction or the completion of a symbolical occurrence 
by its full realisation under the New Testament, in some places ; 
while in others, it means no more than Jerome had in his mind when 
he wrote, " In us is that Socratic saying fulfilled: This little I know, 
that I know nothing." (Epist. 103. ad Paulin.) It would be a very 
desirable thing if these expositors would clearly show ivhen the one or 
the other interpretation should be adopted. If they cannot, they may 
and ought to clear away with Palfrey supernatural predictions re- 
specting Jesus from the prophets and the hagiographa. The word 
fulfil will not stand in their way. It has only to be resolved into 
" rhetorical accommodation." 

It is vain to quote Rabbinical writers to show that they applied 
the term fulfilled to the happening of a similar event merely, as 
Surenhusius and Doepke have done profusely. "We know that the 
writers of the New Testament were Jews, and that their conceptions 
and language must have been Jewish to a great extent ; but they 
wrote in Greek and were under the Spirit's influence. If the Rab- 
binical mode of citation be the rule to try them by, how far shall we 
apply it, for there are many absurdities connected with it from which 
all sober-minded persons will ever revolt ? Shall we apply it to the 
internal as well as the external form, to the nature as well as the mode 
of the quotation in the New Testament ? Or shall we confine it to 
the latter ? Wiseman 2 also adduces two passages from the Syriac in 
which the verb fulfilled refers to mere similarity. But this is aside of 
the object. Let it be shown by some clear example in the New Testa- 
ment itself that 7r\rjp6a> is employed of accomplishment by mere simi- 

1 See Davidson's Hermeneutics, p. 491. 

2 See Lectures on the Connection between Science and Revealed Religion, vol. ii. 
pp. 224, 225. 



198 Biblical Criticism. 

larity, and then something is gained. Till that be done, the accu- 
mulation of Syriac and Hebrew authorities, as well as the phrases 
taken from JElian, Cicero, Plutarch, Eusebius, and Jerome given 
by Palfrey, are nugatory. 1 Does the Old Testament contain types 
or adumbrations of things in the New ; and were the evangelists 
totally in the dark as to the connection of the one with the other ? 
Had they no right to connect them? And did they not mean to 
indicate an organic harmony when they used such words as irXrjpoco? 
We conclude that such was their idea. It is only a supposed v-rrbvoia 
on the part of the writers that justifies their use of words like 
7r\r)p6co, the true meaning of which so many, from Kidder and Sykes 
down to Palfrey, try to fritter away by insisting on mere similarity 
or accommodation, pertinent illustration, &c. &c. The sacred authors 
had a higher idea than this — that of an internal, necessary, providen- 
tially arranged connection. Whether they were always right in 
thinking so, is a question relating to the infallibility of their inspi- 
ration, a question very important and very difficult withal. 

4. The following is a list of the places comprehended in this 
class : — 

Matthew, V. 5. Psal. xxxvii. 11.: verse 21. Exod. xx. 13. : 
verse 27. Exod. xx. 14.: verse 31. Deut. xxiv. 1.: verse 33. 
Exod. xx. 7. : verse 38. Exod. xxi. 24. ; Lev. xxiv. 20. : verse 43. 
Lev. xix. 18. VIII. 4. Lev. xiv. 2. X. 35, 36. Mic. vii. 6. 
XI. 5. Isa. xxxv. 5., xxix. 18. : verse 14. Mai. iv. 5. XII. 3. 
1 Sam. xxi. 6. : verse 5. Numb, xxviii. 9, 10. : verse 40. Jonah, 
ii. 1.: verse 42. 1 Kings, x. 1. XIII. 14, 15. Isa. vi. 9. XVIII. 
15. Lev. xix. 17., xxi. 44. ; Isa. viii. 14. ; Zech. xii. 3. ; Dan. ii. 
34, 35. 44. XXIII. 35. Gen. iv. 8. ; 2 Chron. xxiv. 21, 22. : 
verse 38. Psal. lxix. 26. ; Jer. xii. 7., xxii. 5. : verse 39. Psal. 
cxviii. 26. XXIV. 15. Dan. ix. 27.: verse 29. Isa. xiii. 9, 10. ; 
Joel, iii. 15. : verse 37. Gen. vii. 4. XXVII. 43. Psal. xxii. 7, 
8, 9. 

Mark, I. 44. Lev. xiv. 2. II. 25, 26. 1 Sam. xxi. 6. IX. 
44. Isa. lxvi. 24. X. 4. Deut, xxiv. 1. XIII. 14. Dan. ix. 27. : 
verse 24. Isa. xiii. 9, 10. ; Joel, iii. 15. 

Luke, I. 10. Lev. xvi. 17.: verse 33. Mic. iv. 7.: verse 55. 
Gen. xxii. 16.: verse 73. Gen. xxii. 16. II. 21, 22. Lev. xii. 
3,4. : verse 34. Isa. viii. 14, 15. IV. 25, 26. 1 Kings, xvii. 1. 9., 
xviii. 44. : verse 27 2 Kings, v. 14. V. 14. Lev. xiv. 2. VI. 
3,4. 1 Sam. xxi. 6. X. 4. 2 Kings, iv. 29.: verse 28. Lev. xviii. 
5. XL 31. 1 Kings, x. 1.: verse 51. Gen. iv. 8. ; 2 Chron. xxiv. 
21, 22. XIII. 35. Psal. lxix. 26. ; Jer. xii. 7., xxii. 5. XIV. 8. 
Prov. xxv. 6. XVII. 3. Lev. xix. 17. : verse 27. Gen. vii. 7. : 
verse 29. Gen. xix. 15. 24.: verse 32. Gen. xix. 26. XX. 18. 
Isa. viii. 14.; Zech. xii. 3.; Dan. ii. 44. XXIII. 29. Isa. liv. 1.: 
verse 30. Hosea, x. 8. 

John, I. 52. Gen. xxviii. 12. 111. 14. Numb. xxi. 8, 9. VI. 
49. Exod. xvi. 15. VII. 22. Lev. xii. 3. : verse 38. Isa. Iv. 1., 
lviii. 11., xliv. 3. ; Zech. xiii. 1., xiv. 8. : verse 42. Psal. lxxxix. 4., 
1 See Palfrey's Kelation between Judaism and Christianity, p. 25. el seqq. 



On the Internal Form of Quotations. 1 99 

cxxxii. 11.; Mic. v. 1. VIII. 5. Lev. xx. 10.; Deut. xxii. 21. 
IX. 31. Prov. xxviii. 9. XII. 13. Psal. cxviii. 26. : verse 34. 
2 Sam. vii. 13. ; Psal. lxxxix. 30. 37., ex. 4. XVII. 12. Psal. xli. 
10., cix. 8. 17. XIX. 28. [Psal. lxix. 22.] 

Acts, II. 30. 2 Sam. vii. 12. ; Psal. lxxxix. 4. VII. 8. Gen. 
xvii. 10. : verse 9. Gen. xxxvii. 28., xxxix. 1. : verse 17. Exc-d. i. 7. : 
verse 20. Exod. ii. 2.: verse 24. Exod. ii. II. : verse 30. Exod. 
iii. 2. : verse 38. Exod. xix. 3. : verse 45. Josh. iii. 14. : verse 46. 
2 Sam. vii. 2.; Psal. cxxxii. 5. : verse 48. Isa. lxvi. 1. X. 34. Deut. 
x. 17.; Job, xxxiv. 19. XIII. 17. Isa. i. 2.; Exod. xii. 37.: verse 
18. Deut. i. 31. : verse 36. 1 Kings, ii. 10. XVII. 31. Psal. 
ix. 9.,xcvi. 13., xcviii. 9. 

Romans, I. 22. Jer. x. 14. II. 6. Prov. xxiv. 12.: verse 11. 
Deut. x. 17.; Job, xxxiv. 19. III. 8. Jer. xvii. 6. IV. 11. Gen. 
xvii. 10. IX. 20. Isa. xlv. 9. ; Jer. xviii. 6. XI. 1. Psal. xciv. 
14. : verse 35. Job, xli. 11. XII. 9. Amos, v. 15. : verse 16. Isa. 
v. 21. 

1 Corinthians, I. 20. Isa. xliv. 25. V. 13. Deut. xvii. 7., 
xix. 19., xxiv. 7. IX. 13. Deut. xviii. 1. X. 1. Exod. xiii. 21., 
xiv. 22. ; Numb. ix. 18. : verses 3 — 6. Exod. xvi. 15., xvii. 6. ; 
Nunib. xi. 4., xx. 11., xxvi. 64,65.: verses 8, 9, 10. Nunib. xxv. 
1. 9., xxi. 4., xiv. 2. 36.; Psal. cvi. 14. 19. XIV. 34. Gen. iii. 16. 
XV. 3. Isa. liii. 8, 9. ; Psal. xxii. ; Psal. xl. : verse 4. Psal. xvi. 10. 

2 Corinthians, V. 17. Isa. xliii. 18, 19. VI. 2. Isa. xlix. 8. 
XI. 3. Gen. iii. 4. 

Galatians, II. 16. Psal. cxliii. 2. III. 6. Gen. xv. 6.: verse 
17. Exod. xii. 40. IV. 22. Gen. xxi. 2. 9., xvi. 15. 

Ephesians, II. 17. Isa. lvii. 19. VI. 9. Deut. x. 17.; Job, 
xxxiv. 19. 

Philippians, II. 10. Isa. xlv. 23. IV. 5. Psal. cxix. 151., 
exlv. 18. 

Colossians, II. 11. Deut. x. 16. III. 25. Deut. x. 17.; Job, 
xxxiv. 19. 

2 Thessalonians, II. 4. Dan. xi. 36. : verse 8. Isa. xi. 4. 

1 Timothy, II. 13. Gen. i. 27. : verse 14. Gen. iii. 6. VI. 7. 
Job,i. 21. : Eccl. v. 14. ; Psal. xbx. 18. 

2 Timothy, III. 8. Exod. vii. 11. 22. 

Hebrews, III. 2. Numb. xii. 7. : verse 17. Numb. xiv. 35, 36. 
V. 4. 1 Chron. xxiii. 13. VII. 1. Gen. xiv. 18. IX. 2. Exod. 
xxv., xxvi. 36., xl. 3. : verse 13. Lev. xvi. 14. : verse 14. Numb, 
xix. 2. X. 12, 13. Psal. ex. i. : verse 27. Isa. lxiv. 1.: verse 28. 
Deut. xvii. 6. XI. 3. Gen. i. 1. : verse 4. Gen. iv. 4. : verse 5. 
Gen. v. 24.: verse 7. Gen. vi. 8. 14.: verse 8. Gen. xii. 1. 4.: 
verse 13. Gen. xlvii. 9.; Psal. xxix. 13.: verse 14. Hosea, xiv. 2.: 
verse 17. Gen. xxii. 1. : verse 18. Gen. xxi. 12. : verse 20. Gen. 
xxvii. 28. : verse 22. Gen. 1. 24. : verse 23. Exod. ii. 2. : verse 
28. Exod. xii. 18. : verse 29. Exod. xiv. 22. : verse 30. Jos. 
vi. 20. : verse 31. Jos. ii. 1., vi. 17. 23. : verse 32. Judg. vi. 
4. 15. 11.; 1 Sam. vii.; 2 Sam. ii. : verse 33. 2 Sam. viii. ; 
Judg. xv. ; Dan. vi. : verse 34. Dan. iii. : verse 35. 2 Ivings, iv. 

O 4 



200 Biblical Criticism. 

20.; 2 Maccab. vi. and vii. XII. 9. Numb, xxvii. 16.: verses 12, 
13. Isa. xxxv. 3. ; Prov. iv. 26. : verse 15. Deut. xxix. 18. : verse 
16. Gen. xxv. 31. : verse 18. Exod. xix. 16. : verse 29. Deut. iv. 
24. XIII. 11. Lev. iv. 12. 21., xvi. 27.; Numb. xix. 3. : verse 14. 
Mic. ii. 10. 

James, I. 19. Prov. xvii. 27. II. 1. Lev. xix. 15. ; Prov. xxiv. 
23. : verse 21. Gen. xxii. 9. : verse 25. Josh. ii. 1., vi. 17. 23. 
V. 3. Prov. xvi. 27. : verse 11. Job, i. 21. 22., xlii. : verses 17, 18. 
1 Kings, xvii. 1., xviii. 41. 

1 Peter, II. 3. Psal. xxxiv. 9. : verse 4. Psal. cxviii. 22. : 
verse 10. Hosea, ii. 23. : verse 17. Prov. xxiv. 21. III. 6. Gen. 
xviii. 12. : verse 20. Gen. vi. 3. 12. IV. 18. Prov. xi. 31. V. 5. 
Prov. iii. 34. : verse 7. Psal. Iv. 23. 

2 Peter, II. 5. Gen. vii. 23., viii. : verse 6. Gen. xix. : 
verses 15, 16. Numb. xxii. III. 4. Ez. xii. 21.: verses 5, 6. Gen. 
i. 1, 2, 6. vii. 21.: verse 8. Psal. xc. 4. : verse 10. Psal. cii. 26, 
27. : verse 13. Isa. lxv. 17., lxvi. 22. 

1 John, I. 8. Prov. xx. 9. III. 5. Isa. liii. 4. : verse 12. Gen. 
iv. 8. 

Jude, verse 5. Numb. xiv. 35.: verse 7. Gen. xix.: verse 11. 
Gen. iv. 8. ; Numb. xxii. and xvi. 1. 31. 

Revelation, I. 6. Exod. xix. 6. : verse 7. Zech. xii. 10 — 14. : 
verses 14, 15. Dan. x. 5. 6., vii. 9., viii. 2. II. 14. Numb. xxv. 2., 
xxxi. 16.: verse 20. 1 Kings, xvi. 31., xxi. 23.; 2 Kings, ix. 33. 
III. 7. Isa. xxii. 22. ; Job, xii. 14. : verse 9. Isa. xlv. 14. : verse 19. 
Prov. iii. 11, 12. IY. V. Ex. xxiv. 9—11.; Isa. vi., iv. 6. ; Ez. i. and 
x. V. 11. Dan. vii. 10. VI. 8. Ez. xiv. 21. : verse 12. Isa. xxiv. 18— 
23., xxxiv. 4. : verse 14. Psal. cii. 27. ; Isa. xxxiv. 4.: verses 15, 16. 
Hos. x.- 8. ; Isa. ii. 10. 19—21. VII. 3. Ez. ix. 4. VIII. 3. Ex. xxx. 
7, 8. ; Lev. xvi. 12. IX. 3. Joel, i. 6., ii. 4. : verse 14. Dan. x. 13. 20. : 
verse 20. Psal. cxv. 4., cxxxv. 15. X. 2. Ez. ii. 9, 10. : verse 3. 
Jer. xxv. 30. : verse 4. Dan. viii. 26., xii. 4. 7. 9. : verses 9, 10, 11. 
Ez. ii. 8— iii. 4. XI. 4. Zech. iv. 2, 3. 11. 14. : verse 5. 2 Kings, 
i. 9 — 12.: verse 6. 1 Kings, xvii. 1. ; Exod. xvii. 19, 20. : verse 7. 
Dan. vii. 7, 8. : verse 10. Esth. ix. 22. : verse 15. Dan. ii. 44., vii. 
27. ; Psal. ii. 2. XII. 1. Mic. iv. 9, 10., v. 2.; Gen. xxxvii. 9, 10. : 
verse 5. Psal. ii. 9. : verse 7. Dan. x. 13. 21., xi. 1., xii. 1. : verse 14. 
Dan. vii. 25., xii. 7. XIII. 1. Dan. vii. 3. : verse 10. Gen. ix. 6. 
verse 14. Dan. iii. XIV. 8. Isa. xxi. 9. ; Jer. Ii. 8. ; Dan. iv. 27. : 
verse 10. Psal. lxxv. 9. ; Isa. Ii. 22. ; Jer. xxv. 15. : verse 14. 
Dan. vii. 13. ; Isa. xix. 1. : verse 15. Joel. iii. 18. : verses 19, 20. 
Isa. lxiii. ; Lam. i. 15. XV. 3. Exod. xv. 1. : verse 4. Jer. x. 7. : 
verse 8. Exod. xl. 35. ; 1 Kings, viii. 11. ; Isa. vi. 4. XVI. 2. 
Exod. ix. 8—12., vii— x. : verse 12. Isa. xi. 15, 16. XVII. 1. 
Jer. Ii. 13. : verse 3. Isa. xxi. 1. : verse 4. Jer. Ii. 7. : verse 12. 
Dan. vii. 20. 24. : verse 15. Isa. viii. 7. ; Jer. xlvii. 2. XVIII. 

2. Isa. xxi. 1 — 10.; Jer. Ii. ; Isa. xiii. xiv. xxiv. 11. 13.; Jer. 1. 

3. 39 3 40. : verse 3. Jer. Ii. 7. ; Nah. iii. 4. : verse 4. Isa. xlviii. 
20., Iii. 11.; Jer. 1. 8., Ii. 6. 45.: verse 6. Jer. 1. 15. 29.; Psal. 
cxxxvii. 8.: verses 7, 8. Isa. xlvii. 7 — 9.; Jer. 1. 31.: verse 11. 



On the Internal Form of Quotations. 201 

Ez. xxvii. ; Isa. xxiii. : verse 18. Isa. xxxiv. 10. : verse 20. Isa. 
xliv. 23., xlix. 13.; Jer. li. 48.; Dan. iv. 14.: verse 21. Jer. li. 
53. 64.: verse 22. Isa. xxiv. 8.; Jer. vii. 34., xxv. 10.: verse 23. 
Isa. xxiii. 8. XIX. 2. Deut. xxxii. 43. : verse 3. Isa. xxxiv. 10. : 
verse 4. Psal. cvi. 48. : verse 6. Psal. ii. 2. ; Dan. ii. 44, vii. 27. : 
verse 13. Isa. lxiii. 1. : verse 15. Psal. ii. 9. ; Isa. Ixiii. 3. ; Lam. 
i. 15. : verses 17, 18. Isa. xxxiv. 6. ; Ez. xxxix. 17 — 20 : verse 20. 
Isa. xxx. 33.; Dan. vii. 11. 26. XX. 4. Dan. vii. 9. 22. 27.: 
verse 7. Ez. xxxix. 2. : verses 8, 9. Ez. xxxviii., xxxix. : verses 
11, 12. Dan. vii. 9, 10., xii. 1, 2. ; Ez. xxxvii. ; Isa. xxvi. 19, 20. 
XXI. 1. Isa. lxv. 17., lxvi. 22. : verse 2. Ez. xl., xlviii. : verse 
3. Ez. xxxvii. 27. : verse 4. Isa. xxxv. 10. : verse 5. Isa. xliii. 
19. : verse 10. Ez. xl. 2. : verse 11. Ez. xlviii. 31. : verse 15. 
Ez. xl. 3. : verse 19. Isa. liv. 11, 12. ; Exod. xxviii. 17. : verse 
23. Isa. lx. 19.; Ez. xlviii. 35.: verses 24, 25. Isa. lx. 3. 11. 
20. XXII. 1. Ez. xlvii. 1. 12. ; Zech. xiv. 8. : verse 3. Zech. 
xiv. 11.: verse 5. Isa. lx. 19.; Ez. xlviii. 35.: verse 10. Dan. 
viii. 26., xii. 4.: verse 16. Isa. xi. 1. 10.: verse 17. Isa. Iv. 1. : 
verse 19. Deut. iv. 2., xii. 32. l 

1 This enumeration has been taken from Knapp's " Recensus Locorum Veteris Testa- 
menti in Novo," appended to the second volume of his edition of the Greek Testament, in 
connection with the concluding part of a beautifully printed pamphlet entitled " Passages 
cited from the Old Testament by the Writers of the New Testament, compared with the 
original Hebrew and the Septuagint version. Arranged by the junior class in the Theo- 
logical Seminary, Andover, and published at their request, under the superintendence of 
M. Stuart, Assoc. Prof, of Sac. Literature." Andover, 1827, 4to. 



VOL. II. 



202 

PART II. 

BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION. 



BOOK 1. 

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OP INTERPRETATION. 

CHAPTER I. 

PRELIMINARY. 

The meaning of all language whether written or spoken is ascer- 
tained by the application of certain general principles. These prin- 
ciples in their relation to Scripture are called Sacred Hermeneutics. 
The application of them has received the name Exegesis. The former 
is the science ; the latter its practical application. After the criticism 
of the text has been settled, the interpreter enters upon his office, 
which includes two things ; first, to associate in his own mind with the 
language of the Bible the precise ideas it was designed to convey ; 
and next, to excite the same ideas in the minds of others, by spoken 
or written signs. He tries to apprehend the meaning of Scripture ; 
and when he has apprehended to exhibit it intelligibly. This is no 
easy task. A book like the Bible is unique in character. It comes 
to man divinely attested and with authoritative claims. Hence it 
should not be negligently or rashly meddled with. Certain qualifi- 
cations are necessary to him who would rightly expound it. These 
are twofold, intellectual and moral. We shall briefly refer to them, 
premising that no small measure of the success attending the inter- 
preter's work depends on their possession. They are of far more 
consequence than some appear to suppose. 

Let us first refer to those qualifications which may be termed, for 
distinction's sake, intellectual. 

Here a sound judgment will suggest itself at the outset as a thing 
indispensable. 

This faculty enables one to compare as well as to examine; to 
separate things that are similar, and to distinguish the true from the 
false. By the aid of it, the right signification of a word in a parti- 
cular place will be selected from among others. The adaptation of 
particular instructions to the state and circumstances of those ori- 
ginally addressed by the sacred writers, and their connection with the 
neighbouring paragraphs, will be more readily apprehended. The 
comparison of parallels will be better conducted. The degree of 
importance belonging to the various parts of Scripture will be more 
nearly adjusted. The temporary and the permanent — the human 



Qualifications of an Interpreter. 203 

form and the divine substance — will be discriminated. The exact 
ideas of the original authors will be seized. That a good judgment, 
exercised to discern the true and the false, the real and the fanciful, 
is necessary to a good interpreter is almost self-evident ; for it, more 
than anything else, will prevent him from falling into errors with 
which even the learned are often entangled. What groundless theories 
will it reject without ceremony? There are things too high for 
human comprehension; it will refrain from searching into these. 
Thousands attempt to be wise above what is written; but strong, 
vigorous sense will refrain from adventuring into the mysterious that 
lies beyond the reach of the human intellect. It will not attempt to 
be overwise and expose its possessor to the compassion of all sober- 
minded expositors. It is almost impossible to overrate the benefit of 
a faculty such as that we are trying to describe, in the province of 
interpretation. If it does not always discover the safe path, it 
keeps the expositor near it, untempted by the delusions to which he 
is exposed on every side, amid the innumerable degrees of moral 
evidence with which he has to deal. His judgment must be strong, 
vigorous, clear, to realise all the parts and points of the high themes 
to which it is applied, while it endeavours to apprehend the very 
ideas embodied by the sacred writers. 

Imagination is also requisite. The language of the Bible is highly 
coloured. The style is full of images. The original readers were 
accustomed to the language of poetry. Their fancy was actively 
employed in assisting them to apprehend religious and abstract 
truth. They inhabited countries where the outward and material 
were powerful elements in cultivating the emotional part of men's 
nature. The writers themselves as orientals, partook of the same 
temperament and wrote out of the depth of the same mental habits. 
Accordingly a degree of imagination is necessary to enter into the 
feelings of the writers as well as their first readers — to surround 
oneself with the influences under which they thought and acted. 
Instead of analysing their language as a formula, it must be warmly 
seized as a vehicle of impressive ideas, and brought home to the 
apprehension as a living thing. A cold and formal tribunal to which 
the learned theologian may bring it will fail to perceive its pro- 
prieties and beauties. The style will be denuded of its glowing, 
breathing character. The soul will be extracted from it. The 
colours will be taken away by a deteriorating analysis. Imagination 
will doubtless prevent the expositor from frequent mistake. 

But while a chastened imagination is necessary to the interpreter, 
the excess of it is very pernicious. An unlicensed imagination has 
produced disastrous effects in the interpretation of Scripture. Who 
has not heard of the allegorising processes in which many of the 
fathers indulged, to the perversion of the true sense ? In like manner, 
the hidden senses of mystics have been put forth as the divine 
utterances of the text. The manifold senses of Cocceius and his 
followers, the metaphorical dreams of Keach and Gill, the philoso- 
phical reveries of Hutchinson, have been propounded as the mind of 
the Spirit. In all such cases imagination has been the dominant 



204 Biblical Interpretation, 

faculty rather than sound judgment ; whereas the latter should regu- 
late and control the exercise of the former. The excessive develop- 
ment of the imaginative faculty may be seen in Jeremy Taylor, 
whose fancy wandering amid the glories of nature, and selecting the 
finest images which it shed forth in luxurious exuberance, was scarce 
restrained within the boundless universe. It is well known that he 
had a very defective view of various important doctrines. But the 
man of vigorous judgment will naturally check his imagination when 
it tempts him beyond the boundaries of safe excursion. On the 
other hand, a weak judgment in alliance with a florid imagination is 
unable to resist the allurement. Fascinated by the spell of the 
higher faculty, its voice will be disregarded amid the pomp and music 
of beautiful creations. 

Secondly, among the moral faculties necessary for the interpreter 
has been placed sensibility of heart. l Though it be difficult to define 
what is meant by this, all know what is implied in it. Many things 
in the Bible are addressed to the sensibility of the reader, and as 
such are fitted to make a striking impression upon him. If there- 
fore he be destitute of the faculty, he will have but a confused idea 
of these things. He will neglect them as unimportant, or misappre- 
hend their true character. And yet they are often the sublimest 
expressions of a mind under the influence of the divine Spirit. 
Those passages which can only be felt by the sensibilities of our 
nature are among the best evidences of the supernatural origin of the 
Scriptures. They come direct from hearts in sympathy with the 
divine, and can only be appreciated by the sensibilities of hearts in 
unison with them. Absurd as they appear when analysed by a cold 
logic, they are sublime as soon as the heart seizes and appropriates 
them. Indeed, Scripture generally is written for the heart as much 
as the intellect. The great mass of mankind are not theologians. 
They are not habituated to logical inquiries, nor are their minds 
much cultivated. They are affected and led by the emotions rather 
than the intellect. Accordingly divine revelation speaks to them as 
such. And they receive from it a just and powerful impression. 
They may not comprehend it logically. They are probably unable 
to analyse its meaning with any tolerable degree of exactness ; but 
though it be vaguely and incompletely understood, it moves the 
susceptibilities of their hearts. In this manner, through the medium 
of their sensibilities, Scripture becomes the comfort of the disconsolate, 
the light of the ignorant, the patrimony of the poor. The book of 
Psalms will occur to every one as an illustration of this fact — that 
admirable monument of piety which reveals so much of the soul's 
hidden springs of feeling. In interpreting it, he that regards the 
heart of the prophet king and his own will not go far astray. But 
if he digests it into precise and logical formulas for the purpose of 
intellectual apprehension, he will miss the life and spirit of it. His 
interpretations will often be absurd or ridiculous. Sensibility of soul 
is needful by the side of a sound judgment and good imagination. 2 

1 Cellerier, Manuel d'Hermeneutique, p. 58. 2 Ibid. pp. 58, 59. 



Qualifications of an Interpreter. 205 

Love of Truth. — Truth will be sought after. It must be loved su- 
premely. But in his present state, man is disinclined to subordinate 
all other interests to it. Many things combine to suppress and extin- 
guish this noble disposition. The soil of human nature is not well pre- 
pared for its growth. Passions and prejudices spring up and choke it. 
Anterior opinions stand in the way. Preconceived sentiments inju- 
riously affect it. But an interpreter animated by the sole love of 
truth will come to the Bible with a mind as free as possible from sen- 
timents already formed as to doctrines and duties. In reading and 
endeavouring to understand a passage or book, he will try to forget 
opinions previously cherished about it, that he may derive from it 
with sincere and conscious desire all that is meant to be taught. He 
must be prepared either to abandon former ideas or to modify them 
as far as an impartial examination directs. Wherever the authority 
and sense of Scripture conduct, he should be ready to go. 

This disposition to forego all previously entertained views from 
attachment to truth alone as far as it can be honestly discovered, 
must not be confounded with that scepticism which appears under 
the name of impartiality and is indifferent to or rejects everything, 
even good evidence. It should be judiciously limited. But such 
exaggerated impartiality is far less common than the disposition 
which finds in the Bible what it already wishes. Hence religious 
sects holding very different creeds appeal to the Book as their sup- 
port. Trinitarians and Unitarians, literalists and spiritualists, Cal- 
vinists and Arminians, rest upon the same writings as the basis of their 
respective creeds. Even philosophical schools do the same. 

It is very difficult to find this conscientious love of truth in active 
and faithful exercise among professed interpreters. For it happens 
unfortunately in many cases, that they are too much saturated with 
systems to allow Scripture to change or modify them at will. 
They are unconsciously fettered by existing opinions, and are unable 
to shake them off in obedience to the teaching of divine truth. 
Examples may be found in abundance in systems of theology and 
in commentaries. 

By virtue of the disposition we are speaking of, two extremes will 
be avoided, that of putting into the Bible, or into a passage, what is 
not there ; and that of taking away something which really exists. 
Divine teaching may be exaggerated, or it may be attenuated. It 
may be unduly exalted or depreciated. Thus, when Paulus explains 
the words of the evangelists in Matt. xiv. 26., Mark vi. 49., John 
vi. 19., as denoting that Jesus did not walk upon the sea but on the 
bank or shore ; or when Bishop Pearce supposes that by the words 
of Jesus to Martha " one thing is needful," one dish only is required, 
the passages are enfeebled and disfigured. On the other hand, such 
as explain the fourth petition of the Lord's prayer mystically of the 
gift of the Holy Spirit, mistake the idea conveyed by the Saviour, 
and ignorantly exalt Scripture at the expense of its true inter- 
pretation. 

Everything must be subordinated to the investigation of truth. 
Interests and prejudices which have warped the heart as well as the 



206 Biblical Interpretation. 

understanding, must give way before it. Fondness for hypothesis 
must be repressed ; the desire of reputation kept in abeyance ; the 
secret wish for proofs or indications favourable to a system, silenced 
within. Great is the responsibility attaching to the scholar or the 
theologian in view of the truth ; and unless he keep it steadily 
before him he becomes the slave of passions or interests which 
eifectually blind the spirit. The nobleness of his task is at an end ; 
for what nobler pursuit can be conceived than a calm, impartial in- 
vestigation of revealed truth, that the relations of God and man may 
be seen in their high aspects, and the duties which the creature owes 
to the Creator comprehended in all their range ? Penetrated and 
purified by love of the true and virtuous, the interpreter rises to the 
height of his vocation. But when other interests intrude and rule, 
he must fail in the performance of his appropriate work. x 

Another moral qualification closely allied to the preceding, is 
sj)irituality of mind. The Bible brings us into contact with holy 
men. To understand their language aright we must be holy ourselves. 
What communion of spirit can the selfish sinner have with the sacred 
writers ? A poetic taste is requisite for him who would apprehend 
aright the poet's creations. To relish or understand the profound 
speculations of the mental philosopher, a kindred spirit of investi- 
gation is necessary. So is it with the interpreter of the Bible. He 
comes into the society of holy men. He mounts up into a region of 
purity where eternal truth reigns. How then can such association 
be suited to the mind of him who cherishes no sincere desire to follow 
the leadings of perfect goodness ? If his heart be not open to receive 
the lessons of supreme wisdom, he cannot hope to be initiated into 
the full sense of Scripture. There is no connecting element between 
the ungodly man and the genius of the Bible ; for a current of holy 
feeling pervades the latter. Aversion to godliness naturally shrinks 
back from the spiritual revelations of heaven, and refuses to sym- 
pathise in their quickening power. Knowledge therefore without 
piety is insufficient. Let there be a combination of both. " If any 
man will do His will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of 
God." Consistent walking with God has a great influence upon the 
religious faith. This is the secret of the success attending many 
expositors who possess little learning. The mind tinges language 
with its own colours. If therefore it be corrupted by vicious habits 
or pernicious dogmas, the purity of revelation must suffer. 

It has often been a subject of surprise, that conflicting opinions 
should be founded on the same words and derived from the same 
passage. Men neither deficient in judgment nor slow in perception 
take opposite views of what is plain in itself. But were the peculiar 
qualifications we are speaking of sufficiently insisted on, the wonder 
should soon cease. Men rely too much on their own wisdom. They 
are not taught of God. They do not banish the selfishness which 
stands between them and the communications of the most High. 
The corrupt nature that is in them is unsubdued. 

1 See Cellerier's Manuel d'Hermeneutique, p. 60. et seqq. 



How Scripture should be Interpreted. 207 

It is unnecessary to dwell upon the connection between religious 
conviction and interpretation. They act and react mutually, so that 
the progress of both is continuous. The expositor setting out with 
a general conviction at least of the attributes of Deity, the divine 
origin and authenticity of the Bible and his own need of the salva- 
tion provided, will be able to adjust the general teachings respecting 
Christ and what He has effected on behalf of mankind. And wher- 
ever there is religious conviction there is religious sensibility bringing 
the interpreter into harmony with the thoughts and affections of the 
sacred authors. An irreligious interpreter is wholly incompetent, 
for his heart furnishes no key to the Bible revelations. x 

In coming to the Scriptures with the faculties and dispositions just 
enumerated, the interpreter will perceive that God has wisely con- 
descended to make use of such language as we can understand. His 
revelation is suited to our modes of thought and utterance. He has 
accommodated Himself to our finite capacities. The language em- 
ployed by the inspired writers is such as we can readily apprehend. 
Hence the Bible is to be explained on the same principles as other books. 
Words should be taken in their ordinary acceptation, unless some- 
thing to the contrary be expressed. Men have agreed to employ 
certain written signs as expressive of their inward emotions ; and 
therefore the will of Deity is conveyed through the same medium. 

We are quite alive to the importance of the maxim, obvious as it 
appears, that the meaning of Scripture should be sought in the same 
way we discover the sense of any other book. God speaks in it to 
men as they do to one another, else he could not be understood. 
Yet we cannot go all the length of those who insist on the fact abso- 
lutely and unqualifiedly. Though it be a fundamental axiom that the 
Bible should be interpreted in the same manner as other books, there 
are exceptions to its universality. A peculiarity belongs to many of the 
prophetic parts. The prophets describe events indistinctly. They use 
language which is sublime, but not very clear. Events really distinct 
in time, though similar in character, appear to be blended together in 
the same diction. Hence the terms in which they are narrated have 
more than a single reference. One application of them does not 
include all that was designed; they look towards various objects. 
They must often be considered as symbolical. It was divinely 
purposed that the one should foreshadow the other. The coming 
of Christ in glory might have been regarded by many of the Jews 
as almost coincident with his appearance in humiliation, until He 
was born of a woman ; for the one is sometimes pourtrayed in the 
Old Testament as connected in time with the other. But in the 
Gospels they are separated. The destruction of Jerusalem and the 
general judgment appear co-existent in the Gospels ; but in the book 
of Revelation they are apart. As prophecy advanced, the predic- 
tions of seers assumed a clearer form ; and the readers of these 
inspired effusions were able to avoid the chronological mistakes into 
which their predecessors must have fallen. 

1 See my Sacred Hermeneutics, p 5. et seqq. 



208 Biblical Interpretation. 

These observations have an intimate connection with various pas- 
sages quoted from the Old Testament in the New, especially those 
to which the verb TrXrjpoco is applied. There the events are related 
as symbol and thing symbolised. There is not merely a similarity ; 
but that similarity is viewed by the sacred writers as intended. 
There is an established relation between them. The points of re- 
semblance are described in the same language. The Hebrews were 
taught to look forward to the Redeemer and his reign through 
offices and events belonging to their national history. The features 
of the theocracy were employed by the prophets as prominent images 
in drawing out a picture of future blessings, or as representations 
of the characteristics belonging to the Messiah and his kingdom. 
But we shall revert to this subject again, and need not anticipate 
our remarks. 

The science of Biblical Hermeneutics is not so plain as has been 
represented. Tt is not a thing of mere philology. According to 
Chalmers, it is " a pure work of grammatical analysis. It is an 
unmixed question of language We admit of no other instru- 
ment than the vocabulary and the lexicon. The man whom we 
look to is the Scripture critic, who can appeal to his authorities for 
the import and significancy of phrases ; and whatever be the strict 

result of his patient and profound philology, we submit to it 

The mind and meaning of the author who is translated is purely a 
question of language, and should be decided upon no other prin- 
ciples than those of grammar or philology. Now, what we complain 
of is, that while this principle is recognised and acted upon in every 
other composition which has come down to us from antiquity, it has 
been most glaringly departed from in the case of the Bible : That 
the meaning of its Author, instead of being made singly and entirely 
a question of grammar, has been made a question of metaphysics, 
or a question of sentiment : That, instead of the argument resorted 
to being, ' such must be the rendering from the structure of the 
language, and the import and significancy of its phrases,' it has 
been, ' such must be the rendering from the analogy of the faith, 
the reason of the thing, the character of the divine mind, and the 
wisdom of all His dispensations.' .... The authority of the Bible 
is often modified, and in some cases superseded, by the authority 
of other principles. One of these principles is the reason of the 
thing." 1 

According to these extracts the interpretation of the Bible would 
appear, on the surface of the matter, to be a simple and easy process. 
It is a question of grammar and lexicon, all antecedent or accom- 
panying considerations being rigorously excluded. But we remark, — 

1. That the thing is impossible. Let us see. The lexicon ex- 
hibits a number of meanings belonging to each important word. 
The grammar teaches the various modifications of meaning which 
some change in the form of a word causes it to express. It also 
shows the relations of words to one another. Here then from the 

1 See Works, vol. iv. ch. 4. p. 432. et seqq. 



How Scripture should be Interpreted. 209 

two instruments we only learn what words may signify ; whereas 
our task is to learn what they do signify. There are sentences, and 
those not a few, which may express different meanings in different 
relations with equal propriety. What is determined by lexicon and 
grammar as to the actual meaning of such sentences in particular 
positions ? Surely their interpretation is not made manifest by such 
philological instruments. This will appear from an example. In 
2 Cor. ix. 9. we read, " His righteousness abides for ever." Does 
his righteousness signify, here, His happiness resting upon righteous- 
ness, or His liberality, or the fruits of His liberality ? And what 
is the sense of abides for ever ? Does it mean that God will not 
forget this thing ; or that the fruits of it abide for ever ? In order 
to see the sense of the sentence, Ave must have recourse to some- 
thing more than grammar and lexicon. Hence it will not do to 
exclude the reason of the thing, as Chalmers prescribes. What a 
reasonable man may calmly think and say upon a point, should have 
its due weight. The reason of the thing and many other circum- 
stances which determine and modify our judgment, must and should 
be attended to. 

2. God has inscribed certain laws and principles on the mind of 
man which he cannot wholly discard in the business of interpreta- 
tion. Neither should he attempt to discard them. Their testimony 
is valuable. It comes from God. They act in many cases as a 
test. They control, guide, and modify philology. By means of 
them we are prevented from believing certain things. They weigh 
the moral beauty and fitness of the truth. Now we affirm that 
these internal considerations, implanted in the bosom of every one, 
cannot be practically dissevered from the process of philology. They 
join with and affect it usefully or otherwise, just in proportion to 
their antecedent nature and cultivation. Man comes to the Bible 
with his lexicon and grammar, having a mind already written upon 
by the finger of God, not a tabida rasa or blank book without laws 
or principles intellectual and moral. He has formed notions re- 
specting God's nature and the general character of a revelation 
coming from Him through the instrumentality of men to the world 
at large. He has a prior knowledge and experience which he neces- 
sarily and rightly brings into the exegesis of the Bible, to guide, 
correct, and contribute to a successful elucidation of the divine 
counsels contained in the Sacred Volume. There is a natural theo- 
logy which leads to Christian theology, and lightens up the path 
of the interpreter through its spiritual chambers. 

3. A philology such as that recommended, — a mere adherence to 
the grammar and lexicon, — would bring out nothing but a most 
jejune and sapless analysis of words. It could never educe the 
spiritual sense of the Bible ; and, in reality, no philology has con- 
fined itself within such narrow range. All philology worthy of the 
name has been accompanied and pervaded by philosophy. It has 
embraced the general structure of language ; the usus loqnendi of a 
people and nation ; the entire scope of a book ; the modes of thought 
which give rise to certain forms of speech. History and philosophy 

VOL. II. P 



210 Biblical Interpretation. 

are constituent elements of a true and broad philology, such as is 
capable of explaining the language of an author. And sure we are 
that the philology which would interpret the Bible must likewise 
comprehend much more than the instruments of vocabulary and 
lexicon. For the diction of this sacred book is peculiar. It is highly 
figurative, oriental, parabolic, poetic. A unique imagery pervades 
it. Here then if anywhere, must the philologist bring all his philo- 
sophy to bear. All ulterior tests will be resorted to. Reason in 
its widest sense will be applied as a collateral guide. 

We are quite aware of the fact, that our knowledge of right and 
wrong and all the ineradicable perceptions of moral fitness we pos- 
sess, may be misapplied in interpreting the Bible. Our own con- 
ceptions may be introduced, to the subversion of doctrines or tenets 
which the Bible truly inculcates. But this is merely to say that 
we may destroy the sense of Scripture by wrongfully using the 
instruments God has given us. It is to reason against the legi- 
timate use of a thing from its abuse. Our own conceptions, pro- 
perly applied, stimulate and assist the process of interpretation. 
Improperly used, they nullify or pervert the true sense of Scrip- 
ture. When we carry our previous habits of mind and antecedent 
knowledge into interpretation, we are obeying both Scripture and 
reason, instead of subverting the one and misapplying the other. 

In fine, whatever may be said in favour of the philological process 
recommended by Chalmers, we are sure that no commentator could 
possibly adhere to it without signal failure. No successful expositor 
has ever followed it. In reading the pages of the Bible, he has not 
exploded the principle of " What thinkest thou ?" and substituted 
in its place " What readest thou?" as the eloquent writer recom- 
mends ; but has diligently availed himself of both. While perusing 
holy Scripture, he has judged of its meaning as much, if not 
more, by his antecedent conceptions and doctrines, than by his gram- 
mar and lexicon. Examining the reason of the thing, he has been 
materially assisted in ascertaining the correct interpretation. The 
more he has studied the nature and works of God by the light of 
those intellectual and moral powers implanted within him, — the 
more he has investigated the laws of the material world, — the more 
he has exercised his understanding and sharpened his moral per- 
ceptions, — the more likely is he to arrive at the true meaning of 
divine revelation when he sets himself honestly and humbly to 
inquire into it. The man who has cultivated his reasoning 
powers, and listened to the voice of conscience, is likeliest to make 
the most successful interpreter of the Bible. Reason and philology 
are not mutually subversive. The former is the handmaid of the 
latter. Our inherent ideas of what is right and reasonable are not 
antagonistic to the true sense of Scripture; nor have they been 
rendered so by the fall. Amid all their deterioration, the Great 
Source from which they proceed may still be perceived in them. 
They still show that their Original is divine and good. In direct 
opposition to Chalmers, we hold that the truths of religion are not 
thoroughly beyond the cognisance of the human faculties. Else 



Grammatical Interpretation. 211 

how is man capable of religion, or why is religion adapted to his 
nature ? Why has God given a revelation to a race of creatures 
totally incompetent to apprehend it. It is marvellous to find men 
who, in thus depreciating the religious capabilities of man, or in 
setting them all in direct array against the Bible, do not or cannot 
see that they are doing injury to a book in which God himself 
has written equally with the book without ; that in despising the 
internal revelation they are despising Him who gave the external 
which they extol at the expense of its correlative. 1 



CHAP. II. 

GRAMMATICAL INTERPRETATION. 



In unfolding the problem of Sacred Hermeneutics, it is necessary 
to resolve it into successive parts. Various elements which enter 
into the business of the interpreter must be considered separately, 
though they are not so entirely distinct as they may appear by the 
treatment of them. Rather do they act and react mutually upon 
one another. 

The expositor commences with the study of the grammatical sense 
of the text aided by sacred philology. 

This task is by no means so easy as might seem to one who had 
not attempted it. The science of words has much uncertainty and 
vao-ueness, especially in relation to the languages of Scripture ; for 
it must ever be difficult to fix with precision a leading idea, abstract 
and complex as it usually is. One might suppose that a dictionary 
would render the work very easy, inasmuch as it gives the signi- 
fications of words. But all dictionaries are liable to error, and 
should be followed with discrimination. Besides, they can only fur- 
nish the general signification, whereas the interpreter wants the 
precise sense with its exact shade as determined % the particular 
position in which it stands. 

The difficulties inherent in studying the grammatical sense arise 
from various causes, such as differences in the significations of words, 
want of sufficient analogy between languages, special nature of the 
languages of the Bible and the books themselves, and the influence 
of doctrinal tenets upon hermeneutics. 

(a.) Words often vary in signification, when they possess an ab- 
stract sense. Thus yjrvxv> Trvsvfia, E>92, &c. Here the diver- 
sities are not essential. The signification is substantially the same, 
but the sense is different. 

(Z».) Words, however, are often taken in totally different signifi- 
cations, as avofjbos, a transgressor, and avofjuoos, without receiving a lata ; 
avTaptcsia, contentment of mind and necessaries, t,rfkos, zeal and envy, &c. 

1 See the British Critic for January, 1837 p. 103., et seqq., and Norton's Statement of 
Reasons, p. 110. 

p 2 



212 Biblical Interpretation. 

(c.) Sometimes words are modified by shades of expression, as 
hyperboles, or merely by usage, as ahsXfyos, a Christian. 

(d.) Figures are a fruitful source of new varieties in the senses 
of words. Thus some are taken both literally and figuratively, while 
others occur in two figurative senses, e. g. yprjyopsco, KadsvSco. x 

Besides, there is not exact identity of sense between the corre- 
sponding words of different languages. Thus, God does not corre- 
spond exactly to 5*078, neither do ©so? in Greek and Deus in Latin. 
To these difficulties should be added that which arises to the inter- 
preter from his having to do with two different languages, neither of 
which is perfectly homogeneous in its own nature. Some parts of 
the Old Testament are written in Chaldee. Others exist in a de- 
generate Hebrew which has many Chaldaisms. The Hebrew varied 
at different epochs and in different places. It has many words that 
occur but once. The Greek of the New Testament has its peculiar 
idioms. It is strongly impregnated with a Hebrew colouring. The 
syntax too of the Greek Testament is often negligent and confused. 
It is less exact in consequence of the emotions of the writers or 
literary inexperience. When we reflect, moreover, that both the 
Old and New Testaments proceed from various writers different in 
culture and individual character, the peculiar diction of each has to 
be studied with minute care. 

But the influence of a doctrinal system on Hermeneutics is the 
most fruitful source of embarrassment. And yet the former should 
come after the latter. Hermeneutics ought to precede Dogmatics. 
The duties of the one department should be performed independently 
of and prior to the other, for Hermeneutics are the basis of Dog- 
matics. How often the reverse has been exemplified in practice we 
need not say. Doctrines have been deduced from Scripture without 
the aid of hermeneutical science ; or they have been based on a 
very imperfect Hermeneutic. Theological terms have had their 
meaning assigned to them before the voice of impartial and accurate 
interpretation pronounced it. Important passages have been used as 
speaking men's own sentiments in relation to a system, in defiance of 
the science of interpretation. In this manner, various scriptural 
words, now stereotyped in ecclesiastical creeds, have come to be used 
in senses by no means accurate, or at least, in senses conveying in- 
accurate ideas to the minds of many. Their meaning has been fixed 
in theological controversy or in an age of party strife, when the 
interests of contending sects precluded calm and clear investigation. 
It mattered little to the interests and passions of such, whether the 
leading terms they seized upon as the symbols of definite ideas varied 
according to times, occasions, and the writers who employed them ; 
that was a point they did not carefully investigate. The terms 
faith, justify, ivorks, are not employed in the same sense by Paul and 
James. Luther took them in an acceptation somewhat novel because 
he wished to use them against the Bomish Church. Since the days 
of Luther the terms have been a little altered in sense. They have 

1 See Cellerier, § 37. pp. 76, 77. 



Study of the Text itself. 2 1 3 

been restricted and cramped, compared with the psychological ac- 
ceptation given to them by Paul. Both Calvinism and Arminianism 
have employed various terms, altering their true sense more or less, 
in accordance with the previous tenets of dogmatic theology. Iu 
consequence of the stereotype character which has been given to a 
variety of leading and technical words, the difficulties of a free Her- 
meneutic are greatly increased. For it must bring them back to 
their original and biblical significations, disregarding the current 
character they have long received. l 

Such are the chief sources of difficulty that lie in the way of 
grammatical Hermeneutics. They are formidable enough at first 
sight. But with the intellectual and moral qualifications that have 
been described, they may be overcome. Though the task be hard, 
it is not insurmountable. Effort must be put forth commensurate 
with its magnitude. And there are resources both numerous and 
practical at the disposal of the interpreter. What are they ? What 
means does the grammatical interpreter employ for ascertainino- the 
sense of words ? The following are the pi'incipal. They are derived — 

1. From the text itself. 

2. From the context. 

3. From parallel texts. 

4. From sources foreign to the text. 



CHAP. III. 

STUDY OF THE TEXT ITSELF. 



1. The original texts should be understood and employed. This 
duty, though obvious, is often neglected by the sacred interpreter, 
who fails to consult the text itself through indolence or incapacity. 
He may imagine that, however necessary or important it may have 
been once, it is of less consequence at the present day because good 
lexicons and excellent versions exist in sufficient numbers. These 
he relies upon as generally correct. But as such aids are merely 
human and fallible, the professed expositor can hardly be exempted 
from blame if he rests upon them alone. An ordinary reader of the 
Bible may do so, since he peruses its pages chiefly for his own 
edification ; but the instructor of others stands in a different position 
and has different responsibilities. Without using his own judgment 
on the original he must go astray. The best lexicons have mis- 
takes. The ablest versions fail to express the right sense. They 
do not exhibit the precision and clearness of the originals. The 
theologian, therefore, who employs the text itself has an immense 
advantage over the others. He discerns new coincidences, unex- 
pected allusions, precious elements of thought, hidden beauties of 
expression, to which ignorant or incompetent interpreters, relying 
on a version, are strangers. His ideas are clearer and stronger, 

1 Comp. Cellerier's Manuel d'Hermenentique, p. 74. et seaq. 
p 3 



214 Biblical Interpretation. 

because he has a consciousness of security respecting the results of 
his labour. His confidence is strengthened. A few examples will 
show the necessity of independent inquiry founded on the original 
on the part of an interpreter. 

In Deut. xxxiii. 25., our English version has, " And as thy days, 
so shall thy strength be." This is evidently taken from the Septua- 
gint version. But it is incorrect. The Vulgate translates, " As the day 
of thy youth, so too thine old age," followed by Luther, who gives 
" Thy age be as thy youth." By studying the original words it 
will appear, that the right meaning is "As is thy life, so thy rest or 
death." The term ^S'*}, so much misunderstood, signifies rest or 
death, not strength, nor yet old age. 

Again, a preacher once discoursed upon Ps. lxxii. 20., " The 
prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended." Not knowing that 
this sentence was appended by the person who gathered together 
those compositions included in the book that terminates there, and 
ignorant of the proper meaning of the Hebrew verb -IPS, he took it 
in the signification consummated, crowned with their highest sentiment, 
raised to their highest conception, with reference to the universal 
diffusion of Messiah's kingdom predicted in the Psalm itself. But 
the idea of consummation or completion in this sense is not in the 
verb. It simply denotes finished. 

In the New Testament how often is it taken for granted that in 
Acts xxvi. 28., " Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian," gives 
the true sense ? But sv 6\iyq> cannot mean almost. It denotes in a 
little time (sarcastically) " you will persuade me at this rate to be- 
come a Christian." 

Again, in Ephes. i. 17., irvsiifxa cannot be taken, as a recent 
commentator contends, to mean the Holy Spirit. 1 A knowledge 
of the Greek article teaches this; but he who is not acquainted 
with the doctrine of the article may very probably, in a mistaken 
zeal for Avhat appears to be orthodoxy, affix the signification 
of the Holy Spirit to irvsvjxa in this place. Undoubtedly the 
noun in question would have had the article had such been the 
meaning. The want of the article with irvsiifxa in Matt. xii. 28., 
Rom. i. 4., 1 Pet. i. 2., and in Mark i. 8., Luke i. 15. 35. 41. 67., 
proves nothing in relation to the present case, for it is more than 
doubtful whether in the first three passages irvsvjxa signify the Holy 
Spirit; and those adduced from Mark and Luke are not parallel. 
And even if the first two passages did refer to the Holy Spirit, 
7rv£vfia after a preposition might readily be anarthrous, which is not 
the case here. But indeed in all three, irvsv[xa does not denote the 
Holy Spirit as a person. Neither is it so taken in Ephes. i. 17. It 
means that disposition of mind characterised and defined by oofyLas, 
as also by airoKakv^rsoys sv siriyvcbcrsi, avrov. 

In studying the original texts we inquire first into the usus 
loquendi of the languages employed. How is the usus loquendi of 
a dead language ascertained ? 

1 See-Eadie's Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle, p. 76. 



Study of the Text itself. 2 1 5 

1st, From the works of those who lived when it was current and 
to whom it was vernacular. For example, in investigating the 
meaning of a term we naturally consult the writer himself by whom 
it was employed. He may give a definition of it. Or its connection 
may show the signification ; or again, parallels may indicate with 
sufficient clearness the idea expressed by it. But if the significa- 
tion cannot be found in the author who uses it, we have recourse to 
some other writer who employed the same language. 

2nd, From the traditional knowledge of the usus loquendi retained 
partly in ancient versions, partly in commentaries and lexicons. 

3rd, From writers who employed a cognate dialect. 

These principles are common to all languages. They are the 
true means of discovering the legitimate usage of every tongue which 
has ceased to be spoken. Let us speak of them in their bearing upon 
the original languages of Scripture. 

1. It is well known that a sacred writer sometimes furnishes a de- 
finition or explanation of a word he uses, either at the place where it 
first occurs or in another position. Thus in Gen. xiv. 14. VD^.n is 
explained by iJVl *T<?!, domestics born in his house. In like manner 
in Mark's Gospel, Talitha kumi are both explained, Maid, arise. 

Again, a parallel passage in the work of the same author may 
afford the proper signification of a term. 

2. In relation to the Hebrew we have the Septuagint, the Chaldee 
versions, the Old Syriac, the Latin version, and some others; besides 
the Greek fragments of Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, the Vene- 
tian Greek, and the works of the Jewish Rabbins Jarchi, Abenezra, 
Kimchi, and Tanchum of Jerusalem. 

In the New Testament we have the two Syriac versions, the Latin 
and some others ; Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Arrian, Herodian, 
&c, and the Greek writers generally who employed the kolvtj ScoXsk- 
ros ; Josephus and Philo ; the Scholiasts and early Lexicographers ; 
the catena? and commentaries of the Greek fathers. 

3. A knowledge of the usus loquendi of the Hebrew language 
may be derived in part from authors who wrote in cognate dialects, 
such as the Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic. 1 

Of these three sources the first is the most important and trust- 
worthy. After ascertaining the usus loquendi of the Hebrew lan- 
guage, and noting its features, constructions, and laws, we should 
next observe the usus loquendi belonging to different periods of its 
history. Among the sacred writers there are diversities of language 
arising from various causes, such as diversities of epoch and place 
in relation to the Old Testament. Thus the times of Moses, of 
David and Solomon, of the later prophets and Chaldaising writers, 
may be distinguished from one another by words, style, and even 
grammar. Another cause of diversities in the language arises from 
the nature of the subjects treated, which necessitates diversity of 
style. The points of view also from which the writers set out con- 
tributed to the same result ; while their individualities caused them 

1 See my Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 227. et seqq. 
P 4 



216 Biblical Interpretation. 

to prefer certain words and to attach to them certain senses. Thus 
when we compare the author of the book of Job with Moses, Isaiah 
with Amos, Ezekiel with Micah, we may observe idiosyncrasies of 
thought and the form of it by which they are separated. Many 
examples have been collected by Havernick to show the varieties of 
language and style which prevailed at different periods. But some 
of them are not appropriate, and his inductions are occasionally 
hasty. 1 

In the New Testament also, the writers are characterised by their 
own peculiarities of diction. Take for instance Paul, John, and 
James, and words characteristic of each may be selected from their 
writings, as Credner's examples show. 2 

The very same ideas are expressed by Paul and John in different 
terms, e. g. 7rapdic\r)Tos in John, irvsv/xa ayiov in Paul ; fisveiv hv 
r&) 8sa> in the former, Kaivr) ktlctis in the latter. In like manner Paul 
places apa at the commencement of a clause; John never employs 
the optative, &c. 

Such are the means employed in acquiring a knowledge of the two 
languages in which the Bible was originally written. 

In the study of the text itself, a complete knowledge of grammar, 
including etymology and syntax, is implied. 

Etymology is a very useful expedient, and may furnish considerable 
assistance in tracing the right sense of a word. But it must be ad- 
mitted that it is often treacherous. Sometimes terms deviate widely 
from their original import. Thus the English word villain in old 
writers means a slave; hostis in Latin, according to Cicero, a stranger ; 
&1\> and the feminine n^lp mean an unchaste youth and a harlot, 
though both derived from VHft, to consecrate or be holy, These ex- 
amples show how slippery the use of etymology is — how easily it may 
mislead. And it has misled many, for by the aid of fanciful etymo- 
logies, systems of theology have been supported which have no 
foundation except in the imagination of men. The Lexicons of 
Parkhurst are disfigured by a most injudicious use of it. But 
although it has been much abused, it has its right place and utility 
notwithstanding. Judiciously and skilfully applied, it aids the inter- 
preter. He should have recourse to it however, only when other means 
fail, or simply for the purpose of verifying and confirming results 
otherwise obtained. He should also distrust etymologies which are 
far-fetched or not verified, as when Augustine derived the word irdcr^a 
from 7raer^G>, to suffer, whereas it is from the Hebrew nD?, passing or 
passage. The derivation of siriovaios from iiriovaa, i. e. rjp,spa, be- 
longing to the coming day or the morrow, is far-fetched and 
improbable (Matt. vi. 11.). Some have derived NDW, heavens, from 
OJD DEJ^ there (are) toaters, erroneously, since the true root occurs in 
Arabic. The adjective ala>vios is generally used in the New Testa- 
ment in the sense of eternal or everlasting. But it is affirmed by 
some that it is derived from alcov, an age, and should therefore be 

1 See his Einleitung, Erster Theil, p. 177. et seqq. 
* Comp. liis Einlietung ins Neue Testament. 



Study of the Text itself ; 217 

understood of limited duration, having an age. Such is the danger 
of reasoning from mere etymology. 

A legitimate application of it is useful ; but the way in which it is 
often applied vitiates all benefit that might be derived from it. A 
good example of its right application is the verb Trpoyivcba/ca), which 
denotes simple foreknowledge. We are not aware that it is ever 
taken in another acceptation. But because many Arminians have 
reasoned from this signification, their theological opponents have 
discovered that it is sometimes equal in strength of meaning to the 
English word foreordain, and they appeal to Kom. viii. ix., Acts ii. 23 , 
1 Pet. i. 20. All this is vain. Whether the word favour Arminian 
dogmas or not, it simply denotes foreknowledge, and is always used of 
God in the New Testament. 

We observe, before leaving the subject of etymology, that the 
primitive sense alone should be sought from it. That of the deri- 
vatives should not be inferred from the primitive, without a strict 
examination. 

Besides etymology, a knowledge of syntax is implied in gram- 
matical interpretation. Both are constituent parts of grammar, 
and none can know either the Hebrew or Greek language without 
acquaintance with the grammatical principles of each. 

The syntax of a language is subject to variations in consequence 
of the different influences that modify speech. Such variations 
increase the difficulty of an interpreter's work, though they are one 
of his available resources at the same time. They belong to time, 
place, people, dialect; that is, they are peculiar idioms. Or they refer 
to negligences and incorrectness of language ; that is, they are 
anomalies. Or they modify the construction without changing the 
sense ; that is, they are exceptions of form. Or lastly, they modify 
the sense without changing the construction, that is, they are aug- 
mentations of the sense. 1 

(a.) Idioms. The Hebrew language, as we find it in the books of 
the Old Testament, exhibits special constructions in great variety. 
These it is impossible to translate literally, even if they could be un- 
derstood or appreciated in that manner. For example, in universal 
and negative propositions the Hebrews separate the symbol of nega- 
tion from that of universality, instead of presenting them united. 
Thus Psal. cxliii. 2., *n 72 *p3B? pT$) k? ; literally, every living one 
shall not he justified in thy sight, for, no living one shall be justified in 
thy sight. 

Again, 1 Sam. ii. 3., T\rvi\ nijilj Viytfl -lliri b$ ; literally, do not 

increase (that) ye talk very proudly, i. e., talk no more so very proudly. 

In Isa. xiv. 30., D^l *TO| ; literally, first-horn of the poor, i. e., 

the poorest people, the second noun being qualified superlatively by 

the first. 

In 1 Sam. ii. 3., -VlSIA -1219 W ; literally, do not multiply, do 
not speak, i. e., do not multiply words, a kind of Hendiadys. An 
improper example of Hendiadys is in Gen. i. 14., where Gabler 

1 See Cellerier's Manuel d'Hermenentique. p. 91. 



218 Biblical Interpretation. 

and Gesenius render, " and let them be for signs of seasons and days 
and years." The sense is, " let them be as signs both for seasons 
and for days and years." 1 

In Psal. civ. 16., T\)r\) ^V., trees of Jehovah, i. e., the finest trees, 
an instance of the absolute superlative in Hebrew. A similar ex- 
ample may be found in Gen. x. 9., rrirr? \:pb TV "1*123, a most mighty 
hunter. 

Many Hebrew idioms have been transferred to the Greek Testa- 
ment. There they occupy an important place in modifying the 
sense, so that the interpreter must be well acquainted with them. 

Thus John iii. 15., Xva iras 6 iricrrsvav . . . firj anroXrjTai, that none 
believing should perish, &c, borrowed from the Hebrew. 

A Hendiadys occurs in Luke xxi. 15., Scoac* vfuv crrofjia /cal 
cro(f)iav, I will give you a ivise mouth. 

A false example is in James iii. 14., where fxr) KaraKavxaarOe real 
-tysvhsaOs does not mean " boast not in lying," but, " boast not (of 
your wisdom) and lie against the truth." 

(Z>.) In respect to anomalies, they are most observable in the authors 
that wrote during the decay of the language. Thus ">$3j?, which is 
masculine singular, after a considerable interval is connected with 
the plural, and afterwards with the feminine singular, Jer. xliv. 21. 
But the anomalies of the Hebrew language are not of much extent 
or utility to the interpreter. In the New Testament they are fre- 
quent and of far more importance. It is unnecessary to inquire 
whether they be owing to the want of education which characterised 
most of the writers, or to some confusion of thought, or to forgetful- 
ness. Sometimes there is a change of subject, as in Mark ix. 20., 
I8a>v avTov . . . ko\ irecrdav, or the discourse is changed from the in- 
direct to the direct and vice versa, as in John xiii. 29. Sometimes 
a substantive is joined with an adjective to which correctly speaking 
the latter is inapplicable ; or a verb is connected with several nouns, 
whereas it can only argee with one of them, as in 1 Cor. iii. 2., where 
the verb siroria-a is scarcely applicable to fipwfia. Not unfrequently 
a sentence is begun in one manner, and the writer, forgetting it, 
terminates in a way that does not correspond to the commencement, 
as in Luke xiv. 5., tivos vlbs r\ fiovs . . . s/jbTrscrslTai, koi ovk £vdsa>» 
avaaTrdasL. A false example is in 1 Tim. ii. 15., where rj <yvvrj crayOrj- 
crsrai . . . eav /mscvcoctiv is no anomaly. The plural shows that the sex 
is meant, women in general, and therefore it is quite appropriate 
though the singular precedes. 

(c.) Exceptions of form or incorrectnesses arising from the rapidity 
and liveliness of the writer's thoughts are of various kinds. Thus 
2 Cor. v. 19., koct/xov KaraXkdcrawv savra>, fir) Xoyityfizvos avTols. 

Such anacolutha as Rom. xvi. 25, 26. ; Gal. ii. 6., spring from the 
same cause. Hence too the indirect discourse is changed to the 
direct, and vice versa, as Luke v. 14. ; Mark xi. 32. 

Examples of ellipsis are frequent in languages popular and ani- 
mated like the biblical ones. They are owing to rapidity of thought 
or force of mental power which extinguishes superfluous words. Thus 
1 See Tuch's Kommentar, p. 25. 



Study of the Text itself. 219 

Deut. xxxiii. 6., a negative must be supplied, " of his men let there 
be no number." So too in 1 Sam. ii. 3., a negative is wanting. In 
the New Testament, Paul writes in the Epistle to the Romans, xi. 21., 
" For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also 
spare not thee ; " where SiSoitca or Spars is understood. In 2 Cor. 
v. 13. there is also something left to be supplied. 

Paronomasias arise from the same cause. Words analogous in 
sound but not in sense are brought together. Thus Psal. xviii. 8., 
yn&?ri £>jnrn, B^jUEIl, the earth quaked and shaked ; Gen. xviii. 27., 
-IQX1 1BJ/', dust and ashes; Micah, i. 10., ISj; rn?J^> ; Ezek. vii. 6., 
PPD Ki?£- l I n the New Testament we have iropvsia, Trovqpia . . . 
cpdovov, (povov . . . aavvirovs, aavvdirovs, Rom. i. 29, 31.; apa <ye 
fyivaxTKSts, a avayivcocr/cst,?, Acts, viii. 30. In bvai^v, Philemon, 20., 
there is an allusion to the name 'Oj/^crt/to?. 2 

Besides exceptions of form, there are augmentations of sense. The 
sentiment of the writer expresses itself very forcibly without causing 
any alteration in the words. This occurs in hyperbole, a figure to 
the use of which the orientals are much more prone than the occi- 
dentals. 

An instance of hyperbole may be found in Gen. xi. 4., "a tower 
whose top reaches to heaven;" where Whately erroneously explains 
" dedicated to the heavens," as if a temple were intended to be built 
on it to Bel or Jupiter. 3 In like manner we read in Deut. i. 28., of 
cities i( walled up to heaven." In the New Testament, we read in 
the last verse of John's Gospel, that the whole world could not con- 
tain the books that should be written recounting all the deeds of 
Jesus Christ. 

The opposite peculiarity is termed Meiosis, in which a word or 
phrase expresses more than appears to be said. Of this we find 
an example in Heb. xiii. 17., " for that is unprofitable to you," 
meaning that is pernicious to you. So Paul said that he was not 
ashamed of the gospel of Christ, i. e., he gloried in it. 

With respect to emphasis, which belongs here, it brings some 
accession to the ordinary signification of a word in point of force. 
Thus in Acts, ii. 21., the word call upon or invoke is emphatic, for 
it signifies believing prayer. In the book of Psalms the pronoun is 
often emphatic, as in ii. 6., and /have constituted my king, &c. i, on 
my part, have set my king, &c, while you pursue your course. 

False emphases are very frequent in writers. Thus in Mai. hi. 16., 
the abverb then is said to be peculiarly emphatic; but unnecessarily 
so. So also Ephes. v. 27., " That it (the Church of Christ) should 
be holy and without blemish, dpu^fios." The adjective rendered in this 
manner has been explained, " so free from all censure, that even 
Momus himself (the fictitious diety of mirth and ridicule) could find 
nothing to carp at or ridicule " ! All such emphasising is worthless 
and nonsensical. There is no peculiar emphasis on apboap.os any 
more than there is on the adjective to which it is appended. 

1 Comp. Nordheimer's Hebrew Grammar, vol. ii. § 1117. p. 317. 

2 Comp. Winer's Grammatik, § 62., fourth edition, p. 479. et seqq. 

3 Introductory Lessons on the History of Kcligious Worship, p. 58. 



220 Biblical Interpretation. 

Having thus noticed different figures and forms which affect the 
sense of words, it may be useful to give some general directions re- 
garding them to the interpreter. 

1. The natural, received signification of a word should be retained, 
unless weighty reasons require an alteration. It should be taken for 
granted that a writer does not change the ordinary meaning of the 
words he employs without giving some indication of his so doing. 
Hence the literal meaning of daily bread in the Lord's prayer should 
be retained. Hence also the received sense of Tfksovs^la, covetousness 
or greediness, Col. iii. 5., may be followed although the connection 
in which it stands might seem to favour another acceptation. 

2.. The received signification of a word may be modified, and an 
hyperbole or emphasis assumed, when a physical or moral impossibility 
would result from the literal sense, as also when it would disagree 
with the context or clash with a doctrine revealed in the Scriptures. 
Thus in Isa. liii. 9., it is said in the English version " And he made 
his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, because he 
had done no violence, &c." Here the usual signification of ^3, because, 
disagrees with the context. His wicked contemporaries the Jews 
did not appoint him his grave with the wicked because he had done 
no violence, but although he had done no violence, &c. The words, 
" this is my body, this is my blood, " cannot be literal, because that 
would contradict the evidence of the senses. Hence body must be 
regarded as body in emblem — and blood, blood in emblem. Here 
great care must be taken lest the ordinary signification be altered 
without necessity or sufficient reason. For example, it is needless to 
depart from the received version of ^, because, in 1 Sam. ii. 25., and 
to render therefore, as has been proposed. No doctrine of Scripture 
is contravened by the usual rendering, however it might appear so. 

Connected with the preceding we may refer at the present stage of 
our inquiry to phrases in which the general sense is modified. These 
are concise and sententious, arresting attention by some paradox or 
apparent contradiction. Thus in Matt. x. 39., " He that findeth his 
life shall lose it." This is called oxymoron, affecting the sense as 
paronomasia affects the sound. Besides oxymoron, we also meet 
with irony in the Scriptures, in which some one is turned into ridi- 
cule under disguise of appearing to praise or speak well of him. 
Numerous instances of this are to be found, of which the following 
may suffice. Thus Elijah speaks ironically to the priests of Baal : 
" Cry aloud, for he is a God : either he is talking, or he is pursuing, 
or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be 
awaked" (1 Kings xviii. 27.). So too in Job : "No doubt but ye are 
the people, and wisdom shall die with you" (xii. 2.). In like manner 
Paul writes to the Corinthians (1 Cor. iv. 8.), " Now ye are full, 
now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us ; and I would 
to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you." On the 
other hand, false examples are given in Gen. iii. 22., " And the 
Lord God said, Behold the man is become as one of us to know good 
and evil l ; and in Eccles. xi. 9., " Rejoice, O young man, in thy 

1 See Tuch's Kommentar, p, 95. 



Study of the Context. 221 

youth, and let thine heart cheer thee in the days of thy youth, and 
walk in the way of thine heart and the sight of thine eyes." 1 Even 
the words addressed by the Saviour to the rich young man have 
sometimes been regarded as ironical, but most erroneously; " but if 
thou wilt enter into life keep the commandments." (Matt. xix. 17.) 

Interrogations also modify the sense without being always indicated 
by a change of construction. To know when there is a question 
and when not, is a difficult problem, especially in the New Testament. 
In James, ii. 21., there is an example of interrogation materially 
affecting the sense. The writer either denies or asserts justification 
by works, as the phraseology is understood positively or negatively. 
The context indicates that there is an interrogation ; and therefore 
justification by works is asserted. 



CHAP. IV. 

STUDY OF THE CONTEXT.' 



After a good knowledge of the original languages is acquired, 
including etymology and syntax by means of which peculiarities 
belonging to grammar in its widest sense are readily detected in the 
texts of the Bible, the next source of interpretation is the context. 
By means of it we ascertain the significations of a word, and choose 
the one which alone is applicable in a certain place. We need hardly 
direct attention to the fact, that most terms are used in more senses 
than one. They may not have separate significations, so much as 
various senses, or diversities of one and the same general signification. 
The idea expressed may be vague or obscure. It may be precise or 
indefinite. In such circumstances it will be the chief duty of an 
interpreter to ascertain the proper meaning in a particular locality, 
and afterwards to explain combinations of terms in a given sentence, 
as the author himself intended. In selecting the true sense of a 
word from among others, it is supposed that the primary as distin- 
guished from the secondary meaning is already known. It is implied 
that the etymological one has been found and placed at the head of 
others merely derivative. The significations should be genealogically 
disposed agreeably to the natural laws of association, before they be 
well applied in given circumstances. Here we are materially assisted 
by the labours of Gesenius in the Old Testament ; and Bretschneider, 
Wahl, and Robinson in the New, who have had regard to the genea- 
logical arrangement of significations, though not so much as they 
ought. 

Context may be divided into the immediate and the more remote. 

I. Immediate context. — Under this may be included the following 
particulars. 

1 See Stuart's Commentary on Ecclesiastes, p. 274. 



222 Biblical Interpretation. 

(a.) Sometimes the writer himself subjoins an explanation by an 
equivalent expression or what is tantamount to an equivalent. 

(b.) The subject and predicate of propositions mutually elucidate 
one another. 

(c.) Antithesis, contrast, opposition, or parallelism illustrates the 
sense. 

(d.) The adjuncts, i.e., such as stand in the relation of secondary 
to primary, including oblique cases, adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, 
conjunctions, and other nouns with which it is connected. 

(e.) Examples appended, or the outward operation of the quality, 
principle, or idea involved in a word, show the signification belonging 
to it. 

In speaking of context it is not needful to settle the limits within 
which it lies. It has no definite boundary. It is idle to look for 
exactness here. Precision does not belong to many parts of the her- 
meneutical furniture. The pauses implied by what is commonly 
termed context — the range it takes in — the marks of its cessation — 
depend in a great measure on the view of expositors themselves. 
Perhaps it is sufficient for every useful purpose to speak of the 
nearer or immediate, and the remote context, according as the range 
included is small or wide. Both should be consulted and considered 
for the purpose of obtaining as much security as possible. 

(a.) We have said that the writer himself occasionally appends the 
definition, or rather explanation of a term. Thus in Gen. xxiv. 2., 
\WSl ]\>\, the elder of his house, is explained by the succeeding ?35 ?^an 
"•6 X>K, that ruled over all that he had. In Isa. vii. 20., the figura- 
tive word razor, said to be " hired beyond the river," is immediately 
explained of the King of Assyria. Whether the explanation be a 
gloss or not, it is manifestly correct. Again in Heb. v. 14., the 
perfect or tsXslol are interpreted " such as by reason of use have their 
senses exercised to discern both good and evil." In Heb. x. 20., the 
veil, KaraTTSTacrfia, is explained " his flesh." In Heb. xi. 1., faith is 
said to be " the confidence of things hoped for, the manifestation 
of things not seen." 

(b.) The subject and predicate of a proposition mutually illustrate 
one another. But how are they known in a proposition ? The 
arrangement of words and certain grammatical phenomena indicate 
them. 

In the Hebrew language, when a substantive is the predicate, the 
most common order is, subject, verb, and object; but sometimes the 
predicate comes first, then the verb, and last of all the subject. 
(See Gen. xxvii. 39.) But when an adjective is the predicate, it 
usually stands first and wants the article, as Psalm xxxiv. 9., good 
(is) Jehovah. An emphatic or antithetic word which requires pro- 
minence is put first, whether it be object or subject, and then the 
verb is removed from its ordinary place at the commencement to 
the middle position. But there is little difficulty on this point in the 
Hebrew language. The only case in which some ambiguity may 
arise is such an one as occurs in Psalm civ. 4., where the translation 
may be " making his angels winds, his ministers flaming fire ; " or 



Study of the Context. 223 

" making the winds his angels, the flaming fire his minister." In the 
former case, angels and ministers are subjects ; in the latter they are 
predicates. Here the context and the whole Psalm must determine ; 
showing that the idea is, he makes the winds his messengers, and the 
flaming fire his servant. This is consistent with and favoured by the 
quotation in Heb. i. 7. 1 With respect to the Greek language, the 
subject commonly precedes the predicate as in Hebrew, as, 6 \6yos 
aap% sjsvsto, John, i. 14. The former has the article, the latter, 
being a substantive, wants it. Thus in 1 Tim. vi. 5., " supposing that 
godliness is gain." These positions, however, are not invariable, for 
the predicate also comes before the subject as in John, iv. 24. ; Matt. 
v. 3. ; Rom. iii. 13., x. 4., xiii. 10. Both too may have the article, 
as in 2 Cor. iii. 17., 1 John, iii. 4. ; or both may be anarthrous, as in 
Matt. xx. 16., xxii. 14, It is necessary to examine the connection, 
especially that which precedes. This is particularly required when 
the subject is a pronoun, relative or demonstrative. In 1 John, v. 20., 
ovtos is ambiguous. It may either refer to rov Osov or to 'Irjaov 
Xpio-Tov, which is the nearest antecedent. The case is somewhat dif- 
ficult, but on the whole the former is the more probable. 

As an example of subject and predicate mutually throwing light 
on one another, we refer to John, i. 10., where iysvsro should be taken 
in its literal sense of being made, to correspond with koct/jlos, the icorld, 
to which it refers. Hence Koafios must mean the material world. 
In Matt. v. 13., (lapavOf} means, to be tasteless or insipid, corre- 
sponding to salt, okas. 

(c) Antithesis, contrast, opposition, or parallelism illustrates the 
signification. The distinguishing characteristic of the Hebrew poetry 
has been called parallelism, denoting a certain equality or resemblance 
between the members of each period in a sentence, so that in two 
lines or members of the same period things shall answer to things and 
words to words, as if fitted to each other by a kind of measure. 
Different species of it have been specified, such as the cognate, the 
antithetic, and the synthetic or constructive. 

The first thing incumbent on the interpreter is, to discover the 
fundamental idea of the sentence in which parallelism appears. By 
the aid of this the parts or members should be carefully examined. 
Two extremes are to be avoided. Each hemistich must not be 
understood as having a peculiar meaning distinct from the other 
Diversity of sense must not be urged ; for repetitions of the same 
essential sentiment are not unbecoming the wisdom of the Divine 
Spirit. Neither should a mere tautology be assumed ; as though the 
same idea, without perceptible variation or modification, were exhi- 
bited in the parallel members. Exact identity was not intended. 
The exegetical use of parallelism, with which alone we have now to 
do, consists in giving a general apprehension of the meaning of 
a word or clause, rather than a precise or minute specification. By 
the antithesis existing between the members, or the gradation ob- 
servable in them, or by their homogeneous structure, it is easy to 
perceive the general sentiment contained in a passage. But it can 
1 See Alexander on the PsaJras, vol. iii. pp. 31, 32. 



224 Biblical Interpretation. 

hardly furnish to the interpreter the exact modification of idea 
which the writer meant to convey by a leading term. It gives an 
indeterminate apprehension of the sense, rather than an accurate 
conception of the particular aspects in which it is presented. It tells 
what the meaning cannot be, better than what it is. We should 
also look which of the two parallel members be the more intelligible, 
otherwise a vain attempt may be made to throw light from the 
darker or the more difficult upon the less obscure. When a word is 
well known, the sense of its correspondent or opposite will not be 
obscure ; and when one parallel is figurative, the other literal, the 
latter may be taken to elucidate the former. 

In Isa. xxvi. 14. D*XB*i corresponds to D^no, the dead. The latter 
is obvious. Hence the former word must denote something analo- 
gous. The LXX. render it larpol, but this is incorrect. It may 
be translated shades, equivalent to WW, with the accessory idea of 
incorporeity and debility. 

Isa. xlvi. 11. " Calling from the east, the eagle ; and from a dis- 
tant land, the man of my purpose." The eagle is explained by man 
of my purpose. Hence it is a figurative appellation of Cyrus. 

Psal. vii. 14. nip" 1 ?.?, instruments of death, is explained by I^O, his 
arrows, in the corresponding member. 

Prov. viii. 36. *Ntph, he that misses me, is interpreted by ''NVb, 
he that finds me, in the preceding verse. And this is the radical 
signification of the verb NBn, to miss (a mark). 

Prov. xxix. 8. ■HTSJ must mean set on fire or kindle sedition (in a 
city), as it is contrasted with *)8 -1TK>» cause wrath to cease. 

Ezek. xxi. 3. rb_ signifies green awl fresh, as is shown by its oppo- 
site E>T, dry. So also in Isaiah, xlv. 2. D'H'nn. signifies rough or ele- 
vated places, from the opposition implied in the verb "i$!8, Iicill make 
plain or level. 

Ps J. xvi. 9. H'n? signifies my soul or spirit, as is seen from ""IP, my 
heart, preceding. See also Gen. xlix. 6. 

Psal. cxix. 29. 163. 1j2# ^Tl signifies a false religion, as it is op- 
posed to nn'in, the law, the true religion. 

Psal. xxii. 20., the word ^53, my soul or my life, throws light 
upon the difficult term corresponding to it in the parallel member, 
*flT0;. It is evident that it means life, whether it be rendered my 
only (life), "the only one I have to lose;" or my lonely one, or 
my darling. 

Psal. xxxiv. 10. CTS? is contrasted with T\\T\\ »#"p. Hence as 
the latter refers to men, the seekers of the Lord, the former term, 
young lions, is figurative, denoting men of strength and violence. It 
must not be taken literally. 

In the New Testament the apostle John often states the same 
idea both positively and negatively, the one explaining the other. 
Thus, i. 20., " he confessed and denied not." Or, he contrasts two 
opposites, as in his first Epistle, v. 12. "He that hath the Son hath 
life ; and he that hath not the Son of God, hath not life." So too 
1 John, iii. 5,6.; 2 John, 9. 

An analogous case of affirmation and negation expressive of the 
same idea is found in 2 Tim. ii. 13., " He abideth faithful, he cannot 



Stitdy of the Context. 225 

deny himself." Uicttos /xivsi, abideth faithful, illustrates apvov/xai savrbv, 
deny himself showing the meaning, to be inconsistent icith his own 
character, although the same phrase elsewhere denotes, to sacrifice 
personal interests and gratifications (Luke, ix. 23.). 

Matt. xi. 29. " Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me." Here 
learn throws some light on the phrase, take my yoke upon you, show- 
ing that it relates mainly to doctrine in contrast with the law of 
Moses, which was a heavy yoke to the Jews. Submit to me as your 
teacher and guide, and then you will learn of me, Sfc. 

In Luke, i. 35. there are two parallel and corresponding expressions, 
viz., "the Holy Ghost," and "the power of the Highest." Though 
there is a general similarity between these expressions, they are not 
exactly tautological. The power of the Highest, Svvaftis v^Larov, is 
rather the influence or effect of the presence of the Holy Ghost, 
though Morus and De Wette appear to regard them as identical ex- 
pressions. In 2 Cor. v. 21. d/xaprla means sin, not sin-offering, as 
many understand it. This is shown by the contrasted word righteous- 
ness, BcKacocrvvr]. Christ was made sin that we might be made righte- 
ousness. Here the abstract terms are much more forcible than the 
concrete. 

1 Cor. iv. 5. "Who both will bring to light the hidden things of 
darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. The 
former phrase expresses generally what is more specifically taught in 
the latter. 

1 Cor. xv. 50. "Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of 
God ; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption." Here corruption, 
<p0opa, explains the sense of flesh and blood, aapi; koX alpa, showing 
that the latter does not mean carnal passions, but our corruptible body 
consisting of flesh and blood. 

Psal. xvii. 15. "I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy like- 
ness." The term likeness is illustrated by the corresponding expres- 
sion in the parallel member of the verse, thy face. It means visible 
appearance or form, not moral likeness. 

Psal. cxxxix. 15. " The lowest parts of the earth," is explained by 
the corresponding " in secret " in the verse. And as the latter is 
shown by the context to mean " in the womb ;" so the former refers 
to the same. 

Rom. v. 18. " As by one offence judgment came upon all men to 
condemnation ; even so by one righteousness the free gift came upon 
all men to justification of life." In the first clause of the verse all 
men signifies all mankind without exception ; hence it must denote 
the same in the second clause. Such is the clear, unequivocal ex- 
planation, as Tholuck has perceived, to whose lengthened examina- 
tion of the passage we gladly refer. 1 

A like example to that just given occurs in 1 Cor. xv. 22., where 
the second tt&vtzs is explained by the first. " In Adam all die ; in 
Christ all shall be made alive." The one term is co-extensive with 
the other, as is rightly maintained by De Wette. 

(c?.) The adjuncts of a term or phrase serve also to point out its sig- 

Kommentar, p. 289. et seqq. ed. 1842. 
VOL. II. Q 



226 Biblical Interpretation. 

nification. Most words are restricted or modified by oblique cases of 
nouns and other adjuncts. Thus olkoSo/jli] signifies building, edifica- 
tion, but 8sov olKohofxr] God's building, a building of which God is the 
author — a soul enlightened, comforted, and strengthened with right 
principles by God. In such examples as the present, words have not 
properly a new signification, but that particular sense which the 
writer meant to convey in a given passage. They have the same 
signification but a different sense. It is useful to recollect this, lest 
we follow the example of those who assign a new signification to the 
same term wherever it has different adjuncts. The latter modify 
without altering the generic signification. 1 

Psal. xxvii. 4. njfl* TVl?, in the house or palace of Jehovah, his 
earthly residence, applying alike to the tabernacle and the temple. 
In Isa. i. 10. we have " rulers of Sodom," " people of Gomorrah," 
indicating the character of the rulers and people. 

Psal. xxvi. 6. " I will wash my hands in innocence :" the adjunct, in 
innocence, determines the character of the washing. The Psalmist de- 
clares that he would cleanse himself from all that would defile his 
soul and so unfit him for the service of God. 

Examples in the New Testament are, Matt. v. 3., " the poor in 
spirit" T<p irvsv^ari, specifying wherein the poverty consists. It is in 
spirit. It is wrong to consider in spirit as an adjunct to blessed, 
fxafcdpcot. Gal. vi. 16. " The Israel of God." rov 6eov shows that 
the true worshippers of God, the spiritual seed of Jacob, whether 
Jews or Gentiles, are meant. Col. ii. 9. " The fulness of the God- 
head," the divine perfections of the Godhead. The genitive OsoTqros 
shows that to ifki^pwfjba, the fulness, does not mean the church in this 
place. Col. iii. 1. "If ye then be risen with Christ." The expres- 
sion with Christ appended to the verb, determines the nature of the 
resurrection. It is a spiritual rising or elevation of the soul. 1 Tim. 
iii. 15. olfcos dsov, house of God, meaning the true church, those in 
whom and among whom God graciously dwells. In 1 Tim. iv. 10., 
and v. 7., the adverb /jbakiara indicates a special distinction. In 

1 Tim. v. 3. widows indeed, ovtws, such as were really destitute. 

2 Tim. i. 9. a holy calling, Kkqasi dyla, indicating that the call was 
special and effectual. 1 Peter, ii. 2. to Xojikov yaka, the milk of the 
word; ii. 5. a spiritual house, oIkos irvsv^aTLKOs, defining the nature 
of the household by an epithet. 2 Peter, iii. 18. "in the grace 
and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." Heb. xiii. 15. 
sacrifice of praise, showing the kind of sacrifice, or wherein it con- 
sisted. 

(e.) Examples subjoined, or the outward operation of certain 
qualities and principles. 

In Gal. v. 19 — 21. the works of the flesh are enumerated in their 
various manifestations, showing the comprehensive sense of the 
phrase spya crapKos. In the eleventh chapter of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews many examples of faith are given, from which we learn that 
it is a principle pervading and powerfully influencing the whole life. 

1 See my Sacred Hermeneutics, pp. 238, 239. 



Study of the Context. 227 

In James v. 10, 11., the prophets andJob are adduced as examples 
of suffering affliction and of patience. 

A false example, or one at least partly false, is in Gal. iv. 3., 
where Paul uses the phrase GTOiyzia rod koo-jjlov, elements of the 
world, at first without an explanation, but is said "to give an exam- 
ple of the meaning of it in iv. 9., where it is used of the religion and 
philosophy of the Jews and Gentiles, which preceded the Christian 
dispensation." But the expression in question means the law, as 
affording a mere elementary education in religion. Of the contents 
of the o-roLxsia, examples are given at the tenth verse, but they 
have no connection with heathen philosophy. 1 

II. More remote Context. 

This is merely an extension of the preceding, separated from it by 
no particular boundary. As it is of less benefit in the elucidation of 
single words and phrases than in the explanation of propositions and 
sentences, we shall defer some general remarks upon it till we come 
to the interpretation of passages or paragraphs viewed in the light of 
context generally. 

Here though the interpreter proceed as cautiously as possible 
in adjusting the context and partitioning off distinct paragraphs 
or sections, he will be often disappointed. He will be forced to 
take in a wide range before discovering a real pause in the discourse. 
He must extend his analysis backwards and forwards even beyond 
what may be regarded as a distinct section. To assist in this in- 
vestigation of the sense and sequence of context, another mode of 
proceeding may be recommended, the opposite of that which we 
have been describing. Both should be frequently adopted because 
of the numerous cases of doubt and obscurity which arise. They 
will assist and confirm one another. This latter method is the more 
important. It must be adopted at some stage of exegesis, else no 
comprehensive survey of the contents of a book can be obtained. 
Hence it is desirable to undertake it towards the commencement ; for 
in this manner the future progress of the interpreter will be facili- 
tated. It cannot be neglected without injury. 

Agreeably to the latter method, let the student of Scripture read 
over an entire book at once, disregarding the arbitrary distinctions of 
chapters and verses which often impede the continuity of a dis- 
course. Nor will it be sufficient to read it once in the present way. 
A single perusal may be inadequate for the purpose of a right appre- 
ciation of the whole, especially in the case of argumentative and 
didactic writings Prophetic and poetical books also require repeated 
perusals. The epistles of Paul demand lengthened study. All 
these are not readily divided into distinct sections. The language of 
poetry, animated, impassioned, abrupt ; the communications of the 
prophets, frequently dim and hazy in relation to future events, just 
as the future was seen by them ; the logic of Paul peculiar, oriental, 
Judaic, wanting repose, often strange to the western mind, cannot 
easily be dismembered into larger or smaller portions to be looked at 

1 See my Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 231. et seqq. 
Q 2 



228 Biblical Interpretation. 

in that context-way. But the historical books are readily distin- 
guished into larger or smaller sections, according to the events or 
biographies described. This is especially the case in the Old Testa- 
ment, where the transitions from one fact to another are easily seen. 
It is less so in the life of Jesus as recorded by the different evange- 
lists, because none of them has given more than fragments of his 
public ministry. 

Mr. Locke has found fault with the division into chapters and 
verses in relation to the study of Paul's epistles. In strong terms 
he has inveighed against it as one great cause of preventing a 
proper understanding of those writings. " They (Paul's epistles) 
are so chopped and minced, and as they are now printed stand so 
broken and divided, that not only the common people take the verses 
usually for distinct aphorisms ; but even men of more advanced 
knowledge in reading them lose very much of the strength and 
force of the coherence, and the light that depends on it." 1 But it 
may be questioned if he has not gone too far in his accusations 
against such divisions. While they have perplexed some they have 
facilitated other students of Scripture. With all their incorrect- 
nesses and disadvantages, ordinary readers are on the whole benefited 
by them ; but professed interpreters and those acquainted with the 
original ought to discard them. 

In holding that the communications of the prophets cannot in 
many cases be properly parcelled out into paragraphs because of their 
indistinct and general nature, we must not be supposed as con- 
curring in the ideas of Alexander with regard to the manner of 
Isaiah's writing in the later prophecies of his book. According to 
it the prophet loses himself in a sea of indefiniteness, floating onward 
in a continued desultory discourse, without perceptible distinction, 
pause, or division of subject. Little is specific. Almost all is 
general, incapable of application to one series of events or to precise 
historical persons and occurrences. His effusions may suit Hezekiah 
and Messiah alike. They are so wide as to comprehend many things. 
The same great topics continually follow one another from beginning 
to end in a vagueness which forbids or excludes specific application. 
A sound idea lies at the basis of this view, but it is here carried so 
far as to become extravagant and arbitrary. 2 

That the ordinary chapters and verses occasionally interrupt the 
sense and must be disregarded, is easily shown. Thus Isaiah 51st 
chapter should not terminate where it does, but run on as far as the 
twelfth verse of the 52nd inclusive. The subject of the whole para- 
graph is the glorious deliverance of the people. So also the re- 
mainder of the 52nd chapter, together with the 53rd forms a con- 
nected whole, describing the sufferings and exaltation of Messiah. 

The Psalms usually form distinct subjects, and the divisions can 
seldom be improved. The Hebrew MSS., the Seventy, and the 
Vulgate occasionally differ from the printed Hebrew text in num- 

1 Preface to paraphrase on Paul's Epistles. 

2 See Alexander's Introduction to the Later Prophecies of Isaiah. 



Study of the Context. 229 

bering them. In many MSS. the first Psalm is numbered with the 
second, the forty-second with the forty-third, and the one hundred 
and sixteenth with the one hundred and seventeeth. On the other 
hand, a new Psalm is begun with cxviii. 5. ; indeed cxviii. is 
divided into three Psalms in some MSS. The Seventy join together 
the ninth and tenth ; while they separate the hundred and forty- 
seventh into two. They unite cxiv. with cxv., but immediately 
afterwards divide cxvi. into two. We do not agree with those who 
regard the forty-second and forty-third as one Psalm, though both 
Noyes and Rogers speak very positively on the subject. It is easier 
to account for their having been put together in more than forty 
MSS., than for their separation in the rest. 

The commencement of a new section or subject may be known, 

First, from inscriptions, as in the Psalms ; Isaiah, ii. vii. ; Prov. x. 
We do not hold with Hengstenberg that the inscriptions of the 
Psalms always proceeded from the writers themselves, and there- 
fore do not implicitly rely on their correctness. 

Secondly, from particles or formulas which point out the com- 
mencement of a new topic. Thus, Hear ye this, Isa. xlviii. 1. ; 
Listen, xlix. 1. ; Hearken, li. 1. ; to Xolttov, Ephes. vi. 10. 

Thirdly, from a change of place or persons, either speakers or 
those addressed, indicating that the same discourse is not continued. 
Thus in Isaiah, chap. xvi. 6., "We have heard of the pride of 
Moab," &c, the speakers are changed. In the third, fourth, and 
fifth verses, the trembling Moabites are represented as begging 
shelter from the Jews. The answer of the latter begins at the 
sixth verse. 

Fourthly, it often happens in the prophetical books that a section 
terminates with the announcement of prosperous times. Hence a 
new paragraph may be distinguished by promises of good preceding. 
The divine oracles begin with a declaration of punishment, are con- 
tinued in tones of threatening, and terminate in joyous strains. In 
this way they have a generic conformation. Thus, Amos i. — ix. 10. 
contains threatenings ; ix. 11 — 15. promises. 

After distributing a book into larger sections, subdivisions may be 
conveniently effected. 

With respect to the prophetic books of the Old Testament, some 
are simple in arrangement and regular in plan. Those relating to 
one nation, people, or city, are easily resolved into separate para- 
graphs. Those again which describe the destiny and foretel the 
downfal of various nations in connection with the fortunes of Judah 
and Israel, are more complicated in structure. The separate pre- 
dictions belonging to individual nations must be considered by them- 
selves and resolved into their component portions. 

As an example of regular prophecies respecting one people, we 
may quote Nahum, who foretold the doom of Assyria. His pro- 
phecy is one poem consisting of 

1. A sublime exordium in the first chapter. 

2. The preparation for the destruction of Nineveh. 

3. The destruction itself. 

Q 3 



230 Biblical Interpretation. 

Minuter divisions are the following. Chap. i. 2 — 8. containing a 
description of Jehovah severely punishing his enemies, but doing good 
to his people. Verses 8 — 14., threatenings against the Ninevites ; the 
12. and 13. being parenthetically inserted to console the Israelites 
with promises of future rest. Verse 15. is an apostrophe to the 
Jews, announcing glad tidings to them. Chap. ii. 1 — 9. depicts the 
siege and capture of the city, with the fearful consternation of the 
inhabitants. Verses 11, 12. contain a sarcastic exclamation of the 
prophet over the fallen city. Verse 13. introduces Jehovah speaking, 
declaring himself to be the author of the calamities inflicted upon 
the Assyrians. Chap. iii. 1 — 8. describes the utter ruin of Nineveh 
and the various causes that contributed to it. In verses 8 — 11. the 
prophet introduces the example of No-Ainmon, a city of Egypt, as 
a witness to the Assyrians of the truth of his predictions concerning 
them. No-Ainmon was stronger than Nineveh, yet it was destroyed. 
In verses 11 — 19. it is predicted that Nineveh should be cut off, 
notwithstanding all her warlike preparations and the multitude of 
her citizens. 1 

Again, let us take the first part of Zechariah, viz. chap, i — viii. 
which must evidently be separated from the remainder of the work. 
This portion consists of three general divisions. 

I. The introduction, i. 1 — 6. 

II. Chapters i. 7 — vi. 15., containing a series of visions. 

III. vii. viii., a series of admonitions and promises. 

The subdivisions under these are, i. 7 — 17. ; i. 18 — 21. (the second 
chapter should begin with i. 18.); ii. 1 — 13.; iii.; iv. ; v.; vi. 1 — 8.; 
vi. 9 — 15. ; vii. ; viii. 

In Isaiah, chapters xxiv — xxvii. form one section relating to the 
desolation of the land, the return of the JeAVS from exile, and the 
destruction of Babylon. It may be subdivided thus : xxiv. 1 — 23. ; 
xxv. 1 — 5.; xxv. 6 — 12.; xxvi. 1 — 14.; xxvi. 15 — 19. ; xxvi. 20, 
21. ; xxvii. 1 — 5. ; xxvii. 6 — 13. 2 

In the New Testament epistles there is generally an introduction, 
a conclusion, and a body consisting of two parts, the doctrinal and 
the practical. The first two portions are usually short and indi- 
visible into context-sections; while the body of the epistle itself 
exhibits various partitions. Thus in the epistle to the Galatians, 
chap. i. 1 — 5. forms the preface; vi. 6 — 10. the conclusion at first 
intended, but afterwards continued till the end that now is. There 
is something like a double conclusion. The intervening part con- 
stitutes the letter itself, containing the arguments and exhortations 
of the apostle. It consists of two divisions, viz. : — 

I. Chap. i. 6 — v. 13., which is argumentative or doctrinal. 

II. Chap. v. 14— vi. 10. 

The following are the subdivisions of each: — I. i. 6 — ii. 21.; iii. 
1—5. ; iii. 6—17. ; iii. 18—25. ; iii. 26—29. ; iv. 1—11. ; iv. 12—20.; 
iv. 21— v. 1. ; v. 2—12. II. v. 13—26. ; vi. 1—5. ; vi. 6—10. 

1 See my Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 245. 

2 Comp. Hitzig's Die zwolf kleinen Propheten erklaert, u. s. w., p. 292. et seqq., first 
edition. 



Study of Parallels. 231 

An epistle of John will naturally differ in its conformation from 
one of Paul's. Let us take his first epistle and see its plan. 
It may be divided in this manner : — 

I. Chap. i. 1 — 4. Introductory. 

II. i. 5 — ii. 28. A general admonition carried out. 

III. ii. 29 — iv. 6. A second exhortation. 

IV. iv. 7 — v. 21. A third admonition. 

The sub-divisions are these: i. 5 — 7. ; i. 7 — ii. 2. ; ii. 3 — 11.; ii. 
12—28.; iii. 1—3.; iii. 4—10.; iii. 11 — 18.; iii. 19— 24.; iv. 1—6.; 
iv. 7—21. ; v. 1—13.; v. 14— 21. 1 

In most cases, it will be desirable to investigate context in this 
latter method as well as the former. In all instances of difficulty it 
will be necessary to resort to it. By means of both processes we 
shall be able to discover the proper context of a verse or sentence, 
and consult it with high benefit to the general sense. But let not the 
dismemberment of the Scripture books be carried out too rigidly and 
logically. It is injurious to discourses and writings not methodically 
composed, to reduce them to logical order. Here the followers of 
Baumgarten erred. In splitting down into sections, subsections, 
and propositions, the productions of prophets and poets, they intro- 
duced a sameness and system into them, which were never intended 
by the writers themselves. Under an artificial dismemberment the 
spirit and vigour of the inspired authors evaporate. But the biblical 
writers must not be trammelled by measured rules. 

Dogmatic theologians and preachers in particular have been in 
fault for neglecting the context. They isolate propositions and sen- 
tences. How many of them detach a phrase or verse from the 
paragraph to which it belongs and dress it up to suit a purpose. 
They are captivated perhaps with the sound more than the sense ; or 
if the phrase in question is likely to captivate others, they forthwith 
employ it in their argument. How often such disjointed, dishonest 
expositions are met with need not be told. They are the bane of 
theology, homiletic and controversial. Thus when the text 1 Cor. 
xii. 7. is adduced to prove universal grace, because it is there stated 
that " a dispensation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit 
withal," the entire context proves that the Apostle makes no allusion 
to the matter of universal grace, but to the extraordinary gifts of the 
Spirit, which many in the Corinthian church then possessed. 



CHAP. V. 

STUDT OF PARALLELS. 



Parallels have been variously divided. Gerard makes four 
classes : — 

1. Passages in which either with or without a quotation, the same 

1 Compare De Wette's Exeget. Handbuch. 

Q 4 



232 Biblical Interpretation. 

thing is said in the same or nearly the same words, as Exod. xx. 
2—17., parallel to Deut. v. 16—18. 

2. Passages which relate the same facts in different terms. 

3. Passages in which the same terms or expressions are used in 
speaking of different things. 

4. Passages which treat of the same subject in different expressions. 
But it is more usual and convenient to divide them into two kinds, 

viz., verbal and real. The former refer to words and phrases, the 
latter to facts or doctrines. When the same words, their conjugates 
or synonymes, occur in different places, they are verbal parallels. 
Real parallels contain a correspondence in the thought or subject, 
although the words may be different. In the latter case, the know- 
ledge of things rather than the meaning of words is sought after. 
Verbal parallelism again has been subdivided into three kinds : first, 
where the same thing is said in the same words, as Exod. xx. 2 — 17., 
Deut. v. 6 — 18., Psal. xiv. and lii., Isa. ii. 2 — 4., and Mic. iv. 1 — 3 ; 
secondly, where the same facts are related in similar and some identi- 
cal words, as in Exod., Levit., Deut., and in the Gospels ; thirdly, 
where the words or idioms are used in different connections, as the 
phrase " sound doctrines," in 1 Tim. i. 10., vi. 3.; 2 Tim. i. 13., 
iv. 3. ; Titus, i. 9., ii. 1. 2. 8. 

This subdivision is unnecessary and useless. For with respect to 
the first there is no example in the Bible of any one connected pas- 
sage where the same thing is said in the very same words ; and if 
there were, no illustration of the one by the other could take place. 
Identity destroys the means of mutual explanation. In relation to 
the other two particulars, it is unnecessary to distinguish them, for in 
so doing, the element of context is introduced, with which the inter- 
preter should not embarrass himself in comparing verbal parallels, 
unless there be some urgent need. 

Real parallelism has been subdivided into historic and didactic, 
according as the same events are related, or the same doctrines 
set forth. The Gospels, especially the first three, are full of his- 
torical parallels. One evangelist supplies what another omits, fur- 
nishing some circumstance of time, occasion, or place which illustrates 
the entire transaction. Historical parallelism is also exemplified 
abundantly in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Di- 
dactic parallelism is chiefly exemplified in the New Testament 
epistles, and in the poetical and prophetic books of the Old. But 
this subdivision is of little use. We shall therefore consider the 
subject under the twofold division of verbal and real. In verbal 
parallels it is necessary that the word or phrase whose sense we wish 
to know be less obscure in one of the places than in another. This 
may arise from the addition of a synonymous term to that which is 
doubtful, or from an explanatory adjunct, or the occurrence of a con- 
jugate 1 surrounded by a like context. Of course the briefer and less 

1 Conjugates are words of connected formation. Thus ^dirTifffxa and fSairrlfriu are con- 
jugate terms, in regard to which, when the meaning of the one is explained, the meaning 
of the other follows of course. See Terrot's Translation of Ernesti's Institutio Interpretis, 
vol. i. p. 68. 



Study of Parallels. 233 

perspicuous should be illustrated by tbe clearer and more ex- 
tended. 

Another circumstance which should be attended to is, that one 
parallel should not be subordinated to another. The meaning of a 
word or phrase in one place should not be used as a test, to try the 
correctness of its meaning in another. Parallels should be harmoni- 
ously adjusted, not unduly subjected, the one to the other. Again, 
parallelisms should not be pressed beyond their due force. More 
should not be deduced from them than what they properly contain. 
They may give probability, not certainty. 

In many cases it is unnecessary to resort to verbal parallels. 
Words which occur often and are well understood do not need the 
aid of this source for the educement of their meaning. But when 
terms or phrases are rare or obscure, when they possess a variety 
of senses, leaving it difficult to decide upon the right one in a par- 
ticular case, this kind of comparison is useful. It may also confirm 
such significations as have been obtained from other sources. In this 
manner we reduce the uses of parallels to two, — first, to assist in dis- 
covering the proper sense of rare or obscure terms, or the right 
meaning of a word having numerous senses, in a particular locality ; 
and, secondly, in confirming significations already found, but still 
partially uncertain. 

These remarks are applicable to both languages of the Bible, more 
to the Hebrew than the Greek, from the few remains of the former 
which have descended to our time. 

In this study of parallel words and phrases, it is best to proceed 
systematically, beginning with those occurring in the same book, 
proceeding thence to such as are found in compositions of the same 
writer, and thence to those occurring elsewhere. 

Psal.lxxvi. 11. " The remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain." The 
verb "lins is here rendered restrain. It occurs also in Psal. xlv. 4., 
where it is applied to the girding on of a sword. It is used in the 
same sense in Judges xviii. 11., 1 Kings xx. 11., 2 Kings iii. 21. 
Hence the figure of a girdle or sword-belt used here in connection 
with the remainder of wrath or the last icrath implies that God would 
employ it as a zceapon to coerce and punish rebellious man. 

Psal. lxxxix. 8. " God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of 
the saints, and to be had in reverence of all them that are about him." 
Here D^lp is translated saints. But who are meant by the term ? 
Men or angels? The corresponding phrase all about him, in the 
parallel member certainly applies best to God's heavenly attendants, 
his angels. The word before us occurs too in the preceding and sub- 
sequent verses, where the holy (ones), as it should be translated, 
agrees best with angels. But on comparing Psal. xvi. 3. we find it 
applied to men. Hence we must go out of the Book of Psalms, and 
observe its usage in Dan. viii. 13., Zech. xiv. 5., Job xv. 15., 
where it denotes angels very clearly. In this way we draw the con- 
clusion that the holy (ones) in verse 8. and in the context too refer 
to the anyels. 

Dan. ix., DT^i? W*p s holy of holies. The same expression occurs 



234 Biblical Interpretation. 

in Ezek. xlv. 3., Exod. xl. 10., and other places, where it always 
denotes a place not a person, the most holy place. Hence those in- 
terpreters who apply it to Christ, in Dan. ix. 24., as C. B. Michaelis 
and Havernick, are mistaken. 1 

Psal. xxx. 12. " To the end that my glory may sing praise to thee, 
and not be silent." A parallel to this is in Psal. xvi. 9. "Therefore 
my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth." This serves to explain 
the sense of the obscure expression glory, in the former verse. It 
means, in Psal. xvi. 9., the soul, or nobler part of man, not the tongue. 
Hence we adopt the same sense in Psal. xxx. 12. This is preferable 
to Alexander's interpretation, every thing glorious in a wide sense be- 
cause the pronoun my does not accompany it. 

Psal. xix. 5. " Their line is gone out through all the earth," &c. 
Here the word Ij2 is taken by many to signify sound produced by the 
string of a musical instrument. It occurs also in Jer. xxxi. 39., 
where it means a measuring line. This it must signify in the present 
passage. 

Heb. i. 3. " When he had by himself purged our sins," Sc savrov. 
In Heb. ix. 26. is the full form of the phrase Sta rfc dvcrlas avrov, by 
the sacrifice of himself. Hence by himself in i. 3. denotes, by the 
sacrifice of himself . 

Col. i. 16. " For by him were all things created," &c, ra iravra. 
Some explain ra rdvra of " the whole multitude of the regenerated." 
But in 1 Cor. viii. 6. the same expression denotes all created things, or 
the universe. Hence we explain it so in the Epistle to the Colossians, 
especially as the context requires this sense. 

In Luke xvii. 1. the word avev8s/crov compared with the parallel 
in Matt, xviii. 7. signifies impossible. Its conjugate ivBs^srat with 
ov/c in Luke xiii. 33. proves the same thing. 

Heal parallels are of much greater importance than verbal. They 
too may be divided into the following : — 

1. Parallels in the same book or composition. 

2. Parallels in the same author's writings. 

3. Parallels in any other part of Scripture. 

Here tables of parallels are very useful. But as we are only 
treating at present of the usus loquendi by comparison of words and 
phrases, we shall reserve them till the consideration of sentences 
comes before us. 

The following are examples: — 

Prov. xxix. 13. " The poor and the deceitful man meet together ; 
the Lord lighteneth both their eyes." Parallel to this is Prov. xxii. 
2., where, instead of D»33Ijl ^^> a man °f oppressions or exactions 
(not a deceitful man), the simpler "VtJW, rich man, occurs. The 
clause lightens both their eyes is equivalent to make or create ; and is 
synonymous with " is the Maker of them all," in xxii. 2. 

Psal. cxix. 62. " At midnight I will rise to give thanks unto thee 
because of thy righteous judgments." To this is parallel cxix. 7. 
Hence the "judgments of thy righteousness" cannot be different in 

1 See Stuart's Commentary on Daniel, pp. 272, 273. 



Study of Parallels. 235 

meaning in the two places, as some have supposed. The, judgments 
of God's righteousness are his manifestations of that quality of his 
nature, whether displayed by precept or by punishment. Hence 
it is incorrect to take the expression in different senses in both 
passages. 

There is some indistinctness in the division usually made between 
verbal and real parallels, showing that it is nearly useless for all 
practical purposes. In the former case it is not necessary that the con- 
text be similar, or that the same sentiment be inculcated. The sense 
of a word may be determined either by itself or one of its conjugates; 
though the context be different. In the latter again, it is not neces- 
sary that the same words, their conjugates, or synonymes be used in 
both the parallels. But it is highly desirable that verbal and real 
parallelism should always occur together. The meaning of words 
and phrases will seldom be elucidated without the conjunction of 
both in one place. That the one is for the most part useless without 
the other will appear by some examples. In Isa. iii. 18. we find the 
word D^nn^. All that can be gathered from the context is, that it 
denotes some female ornament or part of the dress ; and from the 
etymology it is inferred that it was moon-shaped. In Judges viii. 21. 
the same word appears, where we learn that it was an ornament about 
camels' necks. But this does not explain what kind of female orna- 
ment it was, except that it was probably worn round the neck. In 
like manner, in Isa. iii. 22. JVinatpp is compared with the same word 
in Ruth iii. 15., from which, however, it cannot be clearly defined. 
These two examples of verbal parallels are given by Meyer l ; and it 
will be seen from them how little verbal parallelism avails to deter- 
mine the meaning of ambiguous, rare, or difficult words apart from 
real parallelism. The same inference follows from Ammon's exam- 
ples in his notes to Ernesti. 2 sv yveoaet,, 2 Cor. vi. 6. is explained, ac- 
cording to Amnion, by <yvwcris in 2 Pet. i. 6., where it means modera- 
tion of desires. But we cannot perceive that any light is thrown by 
lyvwcrts in the latter passage on it as occurring in the former. 
Neither does it mean moderation of desires. Equally nugatory is 
Amnion's other example, in Acts ix. 31., irapdKkrjcris dyiov Trvsv/xaTos, 
illustrated by Acts xx. 12., where it means confirmation in the faith. 
It never means, in our view, confirmation in the faith. 

Psal. xxviii. 9. " Feed them also, and lift them up for ever." The 
last verb here is ambiguous in sense. It may either denote carry or 
exalt. On comparing the parallels in Isa. lxiii. 9. and xl. 11., the 
former is shown to be the preferable acceptation, because the same 
figure occurs in both. 

Gen. xviii. 10. " According to the time of life," n*n nya. The mean- 
ing of this phrase is illustrated by the parallel 2 Kings iv. 16, 17., 
where we have H T *n ny| n-Tn "Wiftz, which is fuller. The sense is, in the 
spring of next year, next spring, literally in the living time or season. 

Matt. viii. 24. a And behold there was a great osmt/jlos." The 
word asia-fios properly means an earthquake ; but on comparing the 

1 Versuch einer Hermeneutik, vol. i. p. 184. 2 Terrot's Translation, vol. i. p. 68. 



236 Biblical Interpretation. 

parallels in Mark and Luke (Mark iv. 37., Luke viil. 23.) which 
have \al\ay\r instead of it, it must here denote a tempest or storm. 

Rom. xii. 20. " For in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his 
head." Here the apostle adopts words from the Greek version of 
Prov. (xxv. 21.) to express his own ideas. Compare, therefore, the 
passage in Proverbs, in order to see the sense of the phrase heap 
coals of fire on the head. It cannot mean vengeance, but the oppo- 
site, melting doion enmity by undeserved kindness. The clause added 
in Proverbs, " and the Lord shall reward thee," is consistent only 
with the sense now given. The opinion of Grotius and Hengsten- 
berg, who think that the reward is one of punishment not of good, 
is antichristian, and inconsistent with the preceding (21.) verse. 

In Eph. ii. 3. the word cpvcrsc, by nature, with its concomitants, 
children of wrath, has given rise to much discussion. The parallel in 
Rom. ii. 14. serves to throw some light upon it. It does not mean 
by birth, as Edwards asserts. It denotes innate tendency. And when 
we read that all are by nature children of wrath, whatever be the pre- 
cise meaning of the words, it cannot convey the sentiment " that we 
are totally corrupt, without anything good in us ;" for this is contra- 
dicted in the parallel in the Epistle to the Romans, where it is 
asserted that the Gentiles might do by nature, by the innate ten- 
dency of their minds, the things contained in the law. The idea of 
absolute, total depravity, in Eph. ii. 3. is annihilated by Rom. ii. 14. 
Hence children of wrath can mean no more than liable to punishment. 
To say as Eadie does, that we were through our very birth actually 
under the awful tvrath of God, as if that were the proper sense of 
Eph. ii. 3., is to put one's rigidly Calvinistic theology into the pas- 
sage, and to fall besides into an error of interpretation. 

Phil. i. 10. " That ye may approve things that are excellent," els to 
BoKi/Ma^siv ra SiatySpovra. The sense of the Greek words is somewhat 
uncertain. The parallel is in Rom. ii. 18. "and knowest his will, 
and approvest the things that are more excellent, being instructed 
out of the law." The context of the phrase in the latter place, not 
only the preceding, knoicest his will (in connection with which the 
version " approve things that are excellent," is tautological), but also 
the succeeding, being instructed out of the law, favours the sense 
" provest things that differ," or discernest the difference between right 
and wrong. Hence the phrase has this same sense in Phil. i. 10. 

Eph. vi. 17. " And the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of 
God." In order to discover the meaning of the word of God, p^/xa 
0£ov, here denominated " the sword of the Spirit," it is desirable to 
compare the expression not only with itself in other connections, but 
with a parallel passage in Heb. iv. 12. : " For the word of God is 
quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing 
even to the dividing asunder of soul and Spirit, and of the joints and 
marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." 
In all the places where pr\p,a dsov occurs, viz., Rom. x. 17., Heb. vi. 
5., xi. 3., it refers to the commands, promises, or comminations of 
God, according to the modification of the context it belongs to. In 
like manner the equivalent 6 \6yos rod Osov, in Heb. iv. 12. alludes 



Study of Parallels. 237 

chiefly to the divine threatenings. In every case it is the gospel, in 
some aspects of it, as preached, which is meant. The passage in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews plainly indicates thus much. Hence, as a 
parallel to Eph. vi. 17., it confirms at least the uniform sense of pij/za 
Osov. It is the doctrine, especially that part of it that bore against 
sin and sinners, which is described as the sword of the Spirit. A 
recent interpreter of the Epistle to the Ephesians grievously errs 
therefore in affixing to it the sense of the Bible. He does not tell 
us how the apostle could exhort the Christians at Ephesus to take 
the Bible, when it is all but certain that they had not the Greek 
Old Testament in their hands, and did not possess the books of the 
New Testament, some of which were not then written. They had 
not the written Bible at all. Every one will see then that the 
" word of God " cannot mean the " Holy Scripture." ] 

Improper examples of parallels are such as these: — Gal. iii. 27. 
" As many as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." 
In Rom. xiii. 14. the same expression occurs, put on Christ, but that 
explains nothing, for though opposed to making provision for the flesh, 
yet the latter is as obscure as the phrase itself. In Col. iii. 10., 
again, we have the phrase, " putting on the new man," implying re- 
newal in knowledge after the image of Christ, kindness, humbleness, 
meekness, and above all, charity. From this comparison of parallels, 
no clear explanation of the word translated put on is deduced. It 
denotes intimate union. This intimate union with Christ is not iden- 
tical with kindness, humbleness, meekness, charity. The latter are 
the effects of the former. When the soul enters into true and inti- 
mate sympathy with the Redeemer, it becomes kind, humble, meek, 
and charitable. Soul-sympathy with Christ produces this disposition. 

Gal. vi. 17. " From henceforth, let no man trouble me ; for I bear 
in my body the marks of the Lord Jesus." 2 Cor. iv. 10. " Bearing 
about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus." This phrase throws 
no light upon the marks of the Lord Jesus. 2 Cor. xi. 23 — 27. 
This passage is not parallel, nor does it explain what these marks 
were. And what might at first sight appear to render it a very 
questionable illustrative place, is the fact that the Epistle to the 
Galatians was written some years before the second to the Corin- 
thians. There is no difficulty in understanding what the marks 
refer to. 

Another improper example of parallels — improper because the one 
throws no light whatever on the other — is Psal. xxxviii. 10. compared 
Avith 1 Sam. xiv. 26. 27. In the latter place, it is related that Jona- 
than's eyes were enlightened, having taken some honey by way of 
refreshment. This, however, does not enable us a whit the more 
readily to apprehend the force of the Psalmist's complaint, that the 
light of his eyes was gone from him. It is true that the eyes of a 
person in good health are sometimes so strong as to sparkle with the 
rays of light ; and that when the constitution is worn by sickness or 
grief, they lose their vigour and brilliancy. All that the Psalmist 

1 See Eadie on Ephes. vi. 17. 



238 Biblical Interpretation. 

refers to is dimness of the eyes induced by great weakness ; a fact 
which is rendered no plainer by the contrast expressed in the case of 
Jonathan's eyes being enlightened. 

Equally nugatory is another parallel which has been adduced thus : 
" In like manner, if we compare 1 Thess. v. 23. with Jude, ver. 19., 
we shall find that the spirit mentioned in the former passage, does 
not denote any third constituent part of man, distinct from the soul 
and body, but that it means the spiritual strength bestowed through 
the grace of the Holy Spirit, in our renovation and sanctification ; 
for the Apostle Jude, speaking of false teachers, describes them as 
sensual, not having the Spirit, that is, as persons abandoned to 
follow their own evil ways, unrenewed and unsanctified by the Holy 
Spirit." 

All this is endeavouring to explain parallels which are not so. 
There is no doubt that spirit, soul, and body, are mentioned in the 
Epistle to the Thessalonians as three constituent parts of man's per- 
son, the same division which appears in Plato and Philo, viz., the 
animal nature, the rational or spiritual nature, and the external body. 
The term here rendered spirit never means spiritual strength, nor 
could it be taken in that sense without a manifest solecism, since 
afisjATTToos would not be applicable. l 

Another example improperly adduced, and yielding by that means 
an erroneous sense, is Matt. xvi. 18. "Thou art Peter, and upon 
this rock I will build my church." With this has been compared 
1 Cor. iii. 11., where Christ is declared to be the only foundation of 
the church. Hence the passage has been explained thus: — " Thou 
art Peter or a rock, and upon myself, the rock of ages, will I build 
my church." Others regard Gal. i. 16., John vi. 51., 1 John iii. 
23., iv. 2, 3., as parallel passages, agreeably to which, the rock means 
Peters confession. But this interpretation is equally arbitrary. The 
passages quoted as parallel are not so. The meaning of the text is 
explained by the words themselves, their immediate context, and the 
subsequent history of Peter. The apostle himself is the rock ; and 
the only passage approaching to the nature of a parallel one, or at 
all explanatory of the present is Ephes. ii. 20., where it is said of the 
Ephesian believers, that they were built upon the foundation of 
apostles and prophets, i. e. upon the foundation they themselves were, 
not upon that which they laid. 

We have thus given examples of two important sources of inter- 
pretation, the context and parallels. They are properly one and the 
same. The one is an expansion of the other. Beginning with a word 
or phrase, its vicinity or context is consulted. The examination is 
continued, till a section or paragraph be included. The sphere of 
inquiry is gradually enlarged till a chapter or more be consulted, 
mechanical divisions being disregarded. That the result may be 
more secure and satisfactory the comparison is prolonged, till the 
book or epistle under examination be gone ever. The entire body of 

1 See Olshausen's Opuscula, vi., De Naturae Humanse Trichotornia N. T. Scriptoribus 
rccepta, p. 145. et seqq. 



External Sources of Grammatical Interpretation. 239 

the Scriptures is embraced. A universal collation is made. Thus 
the one is an extended application of the other. One general source 
is all that has been hitherto considered. But it is useful to separate 
it into different compartments, and to view it in various aspects. 



CHAP. VI. 

EXTERNAL SOURCES OF GRAMMATICAL INTERPRETATION. 

But while we readily avail ourselves of the rule which enjoins a 
comparison of one part of revelation with another, the business of 
interpretation is not completed. Other sources of exposition must 
be consulted. The Bible is a self-interpreting volume to a great 
extent. All the fundamental truths of religion may be discovered 
by means of itself. An ordinary reader may attain to a proper 
acquaintance with the great doctrines on which his spiritual life 
depends through the Scriptures alone. But the professed inter- 
preter needs something besides. Regulating, as he does to some 
extent, the religious faith of others, he should not be satisfied with 
the book itself as its own expositor. Other helps must be resorted 
to. As much learning has been brought to bear on it, it were 
folly to ignore the results which learning has arrived at. We know 
that the truths of the Bible have been perverted and mystified. 
Great pains have been taken to make it speak in favour of things 
foreign to its genius. Violence has been done to its meaning. Were 
it only to counteract these processes, it would be desirable to em- 
ploy the very weapons which have contributed to such peiwersion. 
True learning should become the handmaid of true religion, where 
alone it is sanctified. While we hold therefore, that the Bible can 
be understood in all its leading features by the Bible itself, we must 
maintain at the same time that all its parts cannot be explained 
by the same process. Many are dark and ambiguous. Even in 
ascertaining the correct sense not less than in defending the truth, 
other resources are required. We must go to helps external to the 
Scriptures. 

How insufficient a mere collation of the Bible itself apart from 
external aids is, to furnish the right sense of many passages, may be 
seen from such commentaries as "the self-interpreting" notes of the 
excellent John Brown. Thus in Gen. vi. 3., he gives the sense, 
" God's Spirit strove with them by his inward good motions, by the 
checks which he caused their consciousness to give them, and by the 
counsels and warnings given them by Noah, the preacher of righte- 
ousness." Here the meaning of the two important words strive with, 
or rather fiT and spirit, nil, is misapprehended. The former de- 
notes be subjected, be lowered or humiliated, as a comparison with the 
verb in the Arabic language shows ; the latter does not refer to the 
Holy Spirit, but to that higher energy in man, that principle of life, 



240 Biblical Interpretation. 

which was implanted in the mortal body immediately by Jehovah 
himself, and is therefore called his spirit. 1 

In like manner in Job vii. 20., "I have sinned; what shall I do 
unto thee, O thou preserver of men?" the same commentator mistakes 
the sense when he interprets, " I cannot satisfy thy justice for my 
sins, O thou observer of men." The true meaning is, " If I have 
sinned," si £<ya> rj[jiaprov, as the Septuagint translates, with which 
agree the Syriac and Arabic. " If I have sinned, what have I done 
to thee, O thou watcher of men ?" i. e., what injury have I done to 
thee, O thou spy upon men ? 

Again, in Job v. 7., "Man is born unto trouble as the sparks that 
fly upwards." We learn from the LXX. and Vulgate that the expres- 
sion in the original literally denoting " sons of lightning" means 
swift birds. It is common with the author of the book of Job to 
refer to the lower animals for illustrations, and more probable that 
man should be compared to living creatures than to sparks. 2 

I. The most important source of interpretation out of the Scrip- 
tures themselves is found in ancient versions. 

In applying ancient translations to the elucidation of Scripture it 
is necessary to be acquainted with the character of the particular one 
we intend to use. The time when it was made, the fidelity with 
which it adheres to the original, the general ability of the translator 
or translators, and the present state of its text, are points with which 
the interpreter should be familiar. 

The benefits of consulting these documents consist in discovering 
unknown senses of words and phrases — in confirming what is 
uncertain — and in determining the particular sense which is ap- 
plicable where various meanings belong to the word itself. 

They are useful in resolving what is either unknown or little 
understood. Thus aira% \sy6/jisva or terms that occur but once, are 
often illustrated when other helps fail. 

They may be also employed to confirm the signification of a word 
which has been ascertained by other means. When several versions 
agree, there is strong evidence of its truth. 

Again, versions may be consulted with advantage for the purpose 
of determining what particular sense should be preferred out of many. 
Here they show the traditional knowledge of the language, as it 
existed when they originated. 

In some cases also an ancient version may give to a known word 
a rare signification. Many terms are obscure, though the usual 
method has been adopted to ascertain their signification. When an 
ancient translation explains them satisfactorily, we should not hesitate 
to adopt the solution, unless it appear that the author of it indulged 
in conjecture. Sometimes the primary or fundamental signification 
occurs in a version when it could not be discovered otherwise. 

We shall now refer to the most important versions of the Scrip- 
tures made in ancient times, giving examples of their use in inter- 
pretation. 

1 See Tuch's Kommentar, p. 156. 

2 See Noycs' Version of Job, second edition, p. 100. 



External Sources of Grammatical Interpretation. 241 



THE SEPTUAGINT. 

The Greek version usually called the Septuagint presents a very 
ancient specimen of translation, inasmuch as it belongs to a time not 
far distant from the extinction of the Hebrew as a living tongue. Its 
antiquity must always give it considerable importance, the traditional 
knowledge of the Hebrew being then comparatively pure. It shows 
the sense attached to the Old Testament at an early period. And 
it was highly valued by the Jews as a people, till polemic zeal, 
in the first times of the Christian religion, turned their minds against 
it. The New Testament writers also have commonly quoted from it, 
a sufficient proof that it is substantially correct in general. To the 
Christian interpreter it is peculiarly serviceable, since it explains the 
Messianic passages so clearly of the Saviour that their sense cannot 
well be mistaken. 

This version is useful in interpreting the New Testament as well 
as the Old, because the diction of the former nearly resembles it. 
^oth are in the same kind of Hebraised Greek, and present ac- 
cordingly the same idioms. Hence in explaining the Greek Testa- 
ment it is usual to consult the Septuagint. It is also the parent of 
many others versions, such as the Versio Vetus, the Arabic, besides 
Egyptian and Syrian ones. The influence exerted by it either 
directly or indirectly upon others has been very considerable. That 
there are defects in it none will deny. It has many errors and im- 
perfections which the expositor must carefully note. Time has 
lessened j,ts hermeneutical value. Yet it will always be an interest- 
ing document to the lexicographer, the grammarian, and the commen- 
tator. Thenius has unduly exalted it as a source of criticism in 
regard to the text of the Old Testament ; a modern commentator has 
most extravagantly lauded it in an expository view. " I had pro- 
ceeded," says he, " but a short way in it before I was convinced that 
the prejudices against it were utterly unfounded, and that it was of 
incalculable advantage toward a proper understanding of the literal 
sense of Scripture." 1 This is gross hyperbole. 

The version is useful in correctly explaining airat; \sy6/u,£va, 
words of unusual occurrence, or those whose signification cannot be 
easily determined either from their having various senses or being 
otherwise obscure. 

Exod. viii. 9. (viii. 5. in the Hebrew). "iKQfln occurs only here. 
Our English version translates it " glory over me," as if Moses, 
seeing signs of relenting on the part of Pharaoh, was ready to humble 
himself in his presence, foregoing the honour accruing to him from 
performing his miracles, and laying it at the feet of the king by 
allowing him to appoint a time when he should entreat the Lord for 
the removal of the plague. But this is far-fetched. The LXX. 
translate the verb along with the adverb vu, rd^au irpos \xs. The 
Vulgate coincides, Constitne milii quando, &c. ; appoint me a time 
when, &c. 

1 See Dr. Adam Clarke's Preface to his Commentary. 



242 Biblical Interpretation. 

Deut. xxvii. 9. rispn. This word occurs but once. The LXX. 
rightly render it aicoira, be silent. 

Isa. v. 25. nn-lD3, ods Koirpia LXX., quasi stercus Vulg., like dung. 
Our English version renders the word torn, which is incorrect. 

Gen. xx. 16., the phrase ^)VV n-ID? is rendered by the LXX. 
TL/urj rod 7rpoact)7rou, a propitiary gift, termed metaphorically a covering 
of the face. Abimelech makes Sarah a present to appease her in 
lieu of the wrongs she had been compelled to suffer. The expression 
must not be referred to a veil, as Michaelis, Rosenmuller, Dathe, Von 
Bohlen, and Baumgarten suppose. The n/xr) of the Septuagint, 
denoting price, suggests the figurative sense, which is adopted ac- 
cordingly by Gesenius, Schumann, Tiele, Tuch, Knobel, and De 
litzsch. 

Num. iv. 20. Jv2? is well translated k^d-mva, suddenly. It refers 
literally to the swallowing of the spittle, and was used as a proverb. 

In Gen. xlix. 6. "lit? Ti^V. is translated sveupoKOTnjcrav ravpov, they 
houghed oxen. Not only did Simeon and Levi murder the men of 
Shechem, but they rendered useless what they could not conveniently 
take with them. Others, as the Syriac, Chaldee, Vulgate, Aquila, 
Symmachus, the English version &c. render, they digged down the walls 
or a wall ; but this is quite arbitrary. The best interpreters, as Herder, 
De Wette, Tuch, Knobel, &c, follow the Septuagint rendering. 

Gen. iv. 1., nirp. n^, Bca. tov deov, by the help of God. So too 
the Vulgate per Deum. This is preferable to the English version 
from the Lord, which is contrary to Hebrew usage. Those who 
render I have gotten a man, Jehovah, as if Eve thought she had given 
birth to the promised seed, attribute to her more than she herself 
thought. 

Lev. xviii. 18. "Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to 
vex her, to uncover her nakedness beside the other in her life-time." 
Here the phrase firing n^K has been taken by some idiomatically, i. e., 
one woman to another, one xoife to another, according to which poly- 
gamy is prohibited. But the Septuagint confirms the other sense, a 
wife to her sister, according to which it implies that while two sisters 
should not be married at the same time to one husband, the one 
might be married after the decease of the other. The LXX. have 
<yuvatfca sir a,Ss\(pfj avrr/s ou \r]-^rr], k. t. \. Thus marriage with the 
sister of a deceased wife is allowed in the passage. 2 

VULGATE. 

This version has been highly esteemed by the most competent 
judges. In general it is literal and faithful. Jerome was taught 
Hebrew by the Jews of his day, and therefore the Vulgate embodies 
their traditional interpretation. Hence its general agreement with 
the Chaldee paraphrases. It also coincides often with the LXX, even 
where they differ from the Hebrew. Doubtless it has been interpo- 
lated and corrupted in the progress of centuries. In the Old Testa- 
ment part it is of most value, and there too its aid is most required. 

1 See Jahn's Einleit. in die Gottlichen Biicher des Alten Bundcs, ii. Theil, pp. 661, 
662. 

2 Other examples may be seen in Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 621. etseqq. 



External Sources of Grammatical Interpretation. 243 

Gen. viii. 11. The word S)")9 is not very clear in meaning. The 
English version has for its equivalent pluckt off, with which Onkelos 
and Saadias agree. But the Vulgate properly renders it, " portans 
ramum olivce virentibus foliis." It means a, fresh, green leaf. 

1 Sam. ix. 20. rnoo^O n?!?4, and to whom shall all the valu- 
able things in Israel belong ? So the Vulgate rightly translates : 
cujus erunt optima quceque ? Our English version with Tremellius 
and Miinster have erroneously, " And on whom is all the desire of 
Israel?" 1 

1 Pet. v. 13. Here there is an ellipsis, which requires to be filled 
up in order to complete the sense. The Vulgate has " salutat vos 
ecclesia quae est in Babylone. But Schott and others supply uxor. 
In conformity with the Vulgate some MSS. have skkXtjo la in the text, 
but not from the writer of the epistle himself. The Vulgate has the 
right supplement. 

Col. ii. 9. The adverb awfiairKois has been differently explained. 
Some render it truly, really, as do Grotius, Michaelis, Pierce, Schott, 
and others. But the Vulgate has corporaliter, bodily, which is better. 
The fulness of the divine perfections dwelt in the person of Christ 
bodily, because he was the human impersonation of Deity to man. 2 

OLD SYRIAC OR PESHITO. 

In the interpretation of the Scriptures this version furnishes im- 
portant aid, especially in explaining words that occur but once, and 
in resolving grammatical forms and constructions which are obscure. 
Thus in Gen. xxii. 9. the verb *lj2JJ is expressed by -n^ . to bind. 

In Hos. vi. 8., napy is translated j1 <tA c^Kn . sprinkled or soiled. 
This is preferable to Hitzig's hilly, heaped up as with hills of blood: 
geh'ugelt von Blut. 

In Hos. xi. 3. Dn^, which is the infinitive absolute with the pro- 
nominal suffix, is rightly explained by ^QJ f A ^r^ . O , i" took them up. 

Matt. vi. 11. The word i-movaios is confessedly difficult. The signi- 
fication given to it by the Syrian interpreter seems to be the best, 
inmiYi i ]v>.-».\ the bread of our necessity, the sustenance Avhich is 
necessary. 

Pvoin. ii. 18. ra Bia(f>spovra is a phrase ambiguous in sense. The 
Syriac gives ]A . \ n lS\ - » ; ^n } and thou separatest the things 
ichich are proper, i. e., distinguishest between right and wrong. 3 

TARGUMS. 

The Jewish paraphrases commonly called Targums are chief! v 
useful at the present day in interpreting Messianic passages. They 
may be employed to refute the Jews when they deny that parts of the 
Old Testament unquestionably relating to the Messiah belong to him. 

They are useful in elucidating cnra^ \syo/xsva and difficult words 
and phrases. Thus in Jeremiah x. 17. occurs nw?. This the Tar- 

1 See Thenius on the verse. 

2 See Stuart in the American Bib. Rep. for October, 1836, pp. 414, 415. Other exam- 
ples may be found in Davidson's Sac. Herm., p. 625. et seqq. 

s For other examples, see my Sacred Hermeneutics, pp. 634, 635. 



244 Biblical Interpretation. 

gum explains by T'ni'inp, thy ivares, with which the vTroaracris of the 
LXX. agrees. But the Vulgate has confusionem. In Isa. ix. 18. 
we have the verb DDJ7, which the paraphrast translates nabf], is con- 
sumed or burnt up. The LXX. correspond, avyfcs/cavrai. Abenezra, 
Kimchi, Michaelis, Doeclerlein, Umbreit, Paulus, and the English 
version render it, it is darkened; and in the Arabic language the 
verb *xc, to be darkened, does occur. But there is also a word in 
the same language *s£, a suffocating heat, which Gesenius here 
compares. In Gen. xv. 2., the difficult term ^g>E is explained, the son 
of this governor who is over my house. In Gen. xlix. 10. all the Tar- 
gumists explain the word nVt^by King Messiah. 1 



AQUILA, SYMMACHUS, AND TIIEODOTIOK 

Nothing more than fragments of these Greek versions exist. 
Hence they cannot be of extensive use. Aquila is very literal. He 
is therefore valuable in the interpretation of single words. Sym- 
machus is free in his renderings. Hence he assists, chiefly in the 
exegesis of clauses and passages. Theodotion on the other hand re- 
sembles the Septuagint in the character of his version. 

Gen. i. 2. The two words •inh'j -inn have been explained some- 
what variously. They are translated by Aquila Ksvo^a koX ovBev, 
emptiness and nothingness. There can be little doubt that this is the 
true sense, though the Septuagint has aoparos ical aKaraaKSvaaros; 
invisible and unfurnished, with which Philo and Josephus agree. But 
the best expositors, Tuch, Knobel, and others, understood the words 
of complete desolation and vacuity. 

Gen. iii. 16. ng-IB'JjI. This word, translated desire in our English 
version, seldom occurs. Symmachus renders it correctly rj opfirj, 
which is consistent with its etymology from p-lt^, thou shalt vehemently 
long after him. 

Psalm xvi. 4. The word which we translate sorrows, Drri2¥J?, is 
translated idols by Fischer, Gesenius, Winer, Ewald, Olshausen. 
But the majority of versions favour sorrows, Aquila translating the 
word Siairovrj/jLara. This is expressed by the LXX., Vulgate, Syriac, 
and another Greek version. Idols would be expressed in Hebrew 
D^y. Here Symmachus differs from Aquila. But the meaning 
sorrows is adopted by Rosenmiiller, Hengstenberg, De Wette, Alex- 
ander, and Stuart. 

Psalm xlv. 7. The word D^n?^ is taken by some in the nominative 
not in the vocative. But the ancient translators take it as the voca- 
tive. Aquila renders it dsi, with whom agree Symmachus, Theodo- 
tion, and the LXX. 

Isa xxvii. 8. nXDND3. This is a difficult word, and various ex- 
planations of it have been proposed. It is commonly regarded as 
made up of nxp repeated, as if contracted from ntfpTiKpn with da- 
gesh forte conjunctive, in measure (and) measure, according to mea- 
sure, moderately. This construction is sanctioned by Aquila, Sym- 
machus, and Theodotion, whom Le Clerc, Gesenius, Lowth, Eich- 

1 Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 632. 



External Sources of Grammatical Interpretation. 243 

horn, De Wette, Winer follow. But Hitzig, Ewald, and Knobel 
make the word an infinitive pilpel, and point it differently from the 

Masoretes. 1 

SAADIAS. 

Much assistance need not be expected from the Arabic version of 
Saadias. It is often paraphrastic, and even adds many things for 
which there is no equivalent in the Hebrew. Its testimony may be 
used to confirm in cases of doubt or difficulty what can be otherwise 
discovered. 

In Isaiah xxviii. 25. I^PJ is interpreted, the place marked out, which 
agrees with the Targumist and Kimchi. Our English version erro- 
neously makes the word to agree with rnjtt?, barley, appointed barley, 
whereas it refers to the field in which the barley is sown. 

Gen. xlix. 21. 1BB> *"i'DK. This phrase is confessedly uncertain. Our 
English version renders, goodly words, and so Saadias with most of 
the ancient versions. Others render beautiful branches, regarding 
JSTaphtali as here compared to a spreading tree. But though this 
construction is favoured by the Septuagint, and adopted by Bochart 
with many recent critics, we prefer abiding by the Masoretic punc- 
tuation with Rosenmiiller, Stahelin, Schumann, Gesenius, Tuch, 
Knobel, and Delitzsch. Harris is incorrect in saying that the render- 
ing of Bochart agrees with the Arabic. Both Saadias and the Arabic 
of Erpenius give the other sense. 

The Arabic version of the Acts, Pauline and Catholic Epistles, 
and Apocalypse printed in the London Polyglott is of little use to the 
interpreter. But it may not be amiss to compare it with the original 
in important places. We shall merely give one example from it. 

In Acts xvi. 13. irpoasv^r] is taken to mean a place of prayer, an 
oratory, which is the right sense. It does not mean the act or exer- 
cise of prayer. 2 

The utility of ancient versions has diminished in proportion to the 
advancement of sacred philology in modern times. The valuable 
materials furnished by them have been incorporated into the best 
lexicons and commentaries. 

MODERN VERSIONS. 

In addition to ancient versions, modern ones may also be constdted. 
Of these many have been published since the beginning of the six- 
teenth century, differing greatly in value. Such as combine fidelity, 
accuracy, and elegance in the largest proportion, are of highest merit. 

We shall refer very briefly to the principal modern versions in 
different languages. 

Latin versions may be divided into those made by Bomanists and 
Protestants. The former are generally modelled after the Vulgate, 
are literal and bald in character, destitute of freedom and elegance. 
The latter are freer and smoother, evincing more mastery of the 
original languages. Among Bomanist versions of the Bible are those 

1 Comp. my Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 628. et seqq. 

2 Davidson's Sac. Herm., pp. 630, 631. 

E 3 



246 Biblical Interpretation. 

of Pagninus published at Lyons in 1528, which is very literal, but 
in Simon's opinion obscure, barbarous, and filled with solecisms. 
Erpenius, Buxtorf, and others, pronounce a more favourable judg- 
ment of it. In a revised state it was published by Robert Stephens 
at Paris 1557 ; and by Arius Montanus in the Antwerp Polyglott, 
who took great pains in amending it (1572). The versions of Car- 
dinal Cajetan and Thomas Malvenda appeared, the one in 1639, the 
other in 1650, both at Lyons; but they do not embrace the whole 
of the Old Testament, and are not of much value. Houbigant, in 
his critical edition of the Old Testament published at Paris in 1753, 
gives a good Latin version ; but as it merely represents his own text, 
the version is of no value. Erasmus translated into good Latin the 
Greek Testament to accompany his text, of which the first edition 
appeared in 1516. Of Protestant versions, that of Sebastian Schmidt, 
published at Strasburg 1696 ; of Leo Judae, 1543 ; of Castalio, Basil 
1551; of Sebastian Minister, 1534, 1535 Basil; of Imman. Tremel- 
lius and F. Junius, Frankfurt on the Main 1579; and of John Pis- 
cator, Herborn 1601 — 1615, deserve mention. Schmidt's is nervous, 
terse, succinct, usually rendering the Hebrew word for word. It 
contains the New Testament also. The translation of Leo Judae is 
free and somewhat paraphrastic, but on the whole faithful. Theodore 
Bibliander completed the Old Testament, which the author did not 
live to finish ; and the New is Erasmus's version revised by Gualther. 
Castalio, who translated both the Old Testament and the New, has 
been greatly censured for the softness and effeminacy of the style, 
from which all Hebraisms are carefully removed through an affected 
imitation of Ciceronian and Catullian Latin. What his version gains 
in elegance it loses in force. Miinster studied to give the sense of 
the text clearly and briefly, without the literality of Pagninus and 
Arius Montanus. In his interpretations he followed for the most 
part the Jews. The version of Tremellius and Junius, embracing 
only the Old Testament, can scarcely be commended as faithful or 
accurate. They took too great liberties with the text, and produced 
a paraphrase rather than a true version. 

The version of Piscator, extending only to the Old Testament, is 
founded on that of Junius, which it corrects in many places, ren- 
dering it more accurate and conformable to the Hebrew verity. 

The Latin version of Dathe (1773 — 1789), extending to all the 
books of the Old Testament, is valuable and faithful, representing 
the state to which the school of Michaelis had advanced criticism and 
exegesis. The Latin is good, and often elegant. It is surpassed, 
however, by that begun by Schott and Winzer (1816), which 
stopped with the Pentateuch. The Latin versions of the New 
Testament by Thalemann (1781), containing the Gospels and Acts; 
by Jaspis (1793, 1797), containing only the Epistles; by Reichard 
(1799), and by Schott (1839, fourth edition), belong to the school 
of Ernesti, and exhibit in consequence a good Latinity ; but their 
interpretations might be improved. Schott's may be regarded as, on 
the whole, the best of them. Naebe's (1831), accompanying his 
edition of the Greek Testament, is an eclectic Latin version, com- 



External Sources of Grammatical Interpretation. 247 

piled from preceding ones. Goeschen's, likewise accompanying the 
Greek text, is close and accurate (1832). Sebastiani's is made pro- 
fessedly but not really from the text of the Codex Alexandrinus, and 
is of little value (1816). The last is the production of a Romanist. 
Of older Latin translations of the New Testament Beza's has been 
most valued. 

Of German versions, that of Luther has always maintained a high 
reputation. It is the oldest and most celebrated of all Protestant 
versions, and the mother of very many others. It was begun and 
published in parts from 1517 till 1534, when the whole work was 
completed, containing the Old and New Testaments and the Apo- 
crypha. A new and complete edition appeared in 1534. The second 
edition was published in 1541, 1542. Both are without the division 
of verses and adorned with numerous woodcuts. That of De Wette, 
of which the third and last edition appeared at Heidelberg in 1839, is 
altogether the best version which has yet been published in any lan- 
guage. Learning, taste, and exegetical tact, combine to exalt it above 
all. The French Protestants received their first French version from 
Olivetan, a relative of Calvin, and minister of the Gospel in Geneva, 
whose work appeared in 1535, under the name of the Geneva Bible. 
It appears not to have satisfied the expectations or desires of Calvin, 
for he revised it, and endeavoured to improve the rough and too 
often unintelligible style. The edition containing Calvin's cor- 
rections appeared at Geneva in 1540. But the principal revision 
Avas made by a number of Geneva professors and preachers, the 
chief of whom were Bertram, Hebrew professor, and Beza, 1588. 
Many other editions and revisions of this version appeared in suc- 
ceeding years. That of Ostervald is best known. A free and good 
version was made by Charles Le Cene, which was not published till 
thirty-eight years after his death, at Amsterdam, 1741. The New 
Testament was well translated by Le Clerc (Amsterdam, 1703) ; 
and afterwards by Beausobre and L'Enfant (Amsterdam, 1718). 
This last has been much used and highly valued. 

Almost all existing Spanish and Portuguese translations proceeded 
from Protestants or Jews, and were printed in other countries. The 
first complete Spanish Bible was published at Basil in 1569, made 
by Cassiodore de Reyna, a Protestant, chiefly based upon Pagninus. 
That of Cyprian de Valera is founded chiefly on the Genevan 
French Bible, and was published at Amsterdam in 1602. A Portu- 
guese translation was made by John Ferreira, of Almeida, preacher 
at Batavia, and printed at Tranquebar 1719 — 1738, by the Danish 
Mission press. The New Testament part appeared first at Amster- 
dam in 1712. 

Italian versions by Protestants were all printed abroad. The 
oldest was made by Massimo Theofilo, formerly monk in the monas- 
tery of Mount Cassino, who fled to Geneva with other Italian Pro- 
testants, and published his translation at Lyons in 1551. Far 
superior to this, and indeed to any other Italian version, is that of 
Diodati, published at Geneva 1641. This version is distinguished 
for its accuracy, fidelity, and want of rhythm. A revision of it has 

R 4 



248 Biblical Interpretation. 

just appeared (1855) by Count Piero Guicciardini. In it the trans- 
lation is made far more idiomatic and exact as to Italian expression ; 
while as to scholarship, the accomplished editor has availed himself 
throughout of the learning of men thoroughly competent. The im- 
provement of Diodati is here both conspicuous and considerable. 
Some Italian translations of the New Testament, published in Ger- 
many for the use of Italian Protestants, hardly found their way into 
Italy, such as those of Berlando de Lega (1711), and Gluck (1743). 

In the Dutch language, the first independent version is that made 
by order of the Synod of Dort, the work of various persons, 1628 — 
1632. A better than this is that of Van der Palm, which has met 
with great acceptance, 1818. 

The first Danish version taken directly from the original was that 
of Resenius, Bishop of Copenhagen, 1607. It is too literal, and 
consequently often unintelligible. A new one was undertaken not 
long ago by the members of the theological faculty, under the pre- 
sidency of the celebrated Bishop Miinter, of Copenhagen. 

The first Swedish version from the original was made by Lorenz 
Andrea, Chancellor to Gustavus the First (1526). A better ap- 
peared at Upsala in 1541, the work of the celebrated reformer Olaus 
Petri, and his brother, Lorenz Petri. In it the version of Luther 
was carefully used. The most valuable and thorough revision of 
this version was made by the learned Bishop Gezelius, which ap- 
peared in 1711 — 28. 

The New Testament was first published in Polish by John Selu- 
cianus 1551. During the Unitarian disputations, the entire Bible 
was published in 1563, under the patronage of Prince Radzivil. 
Not satisfied with the Unitarian tendencies in it, the Reformed party 
made a new one, which was published in 1632 at Danzig. This was 
the work of three individuals. Several new versions were also made 
by the Socinians. 

Of Hungarian Bible versions, the first made from the original was 
that of Caspar Karolyi, published at Visoly, 1590. The new re- 
vision of it by Molner was highly esteemed. Another was subse- 
cpiently made by George Esipkes, a reformed preacher, which was 
printed at Ley den 1717. But its introduction into the country was 
violently opposed ; and most of the copies were suppressed or de- 
stroyed. Jerome of Alphen had also a beautiful Hungarian Bible 
printed at Utrecht during the same period of persecution. 

The Bohemian Bible was translated from the original by eight 
Bohemian brethren, Protestants, who had studied at Wittemberg 
and Basil. It appeared at Kralitz in six parts, 1579 — 1593. 

It is unnecessary to particularise the English versions made by 
Tyndale, Coverdale, and Cranmer. The Geneva Bible, published 
in 1560, is a most valuable and excellent version. The Bishop's 
Bible, that is Parker's, appeared in 1568. King James's Bible, the 
present authorised version, appeared in 1611, the history and merits 
of which are well known. Geddes, however, prefers the Geneva 
version. Since its publication, no good translation of the entire 
Bible has appeared in English. Different books and parts have been 



External Sources of Grammatical Interpretation. 249 

well translated ; but not the whole Scriptures. The most important 
work of the kind was the new version of Dr. Geddes, with critical 
remarks and notes, published at London 1792 — 1800. Death pre- 
vented the completion of it. This work has more merit than is 
generally allowed ; though the principles of the learned critic were 
neither sound nor safe. 

The value of these modern versions, and of others to which we 
might have referred, is less than that of the ancient ones for purposes 
of interpretation. Some of them, however, will bear favourable 
comparison with their old predecessors. De Wette's is more useful 
than any other, ancient or modern. Since the revival of Hebrew 
literature by the labours of Gesenius, and of New Testament lite- 
rature by the younger Planck and Winer, modern versions made by 
learned and competent scholars are very serviceable in exegesis. 
Indeed, they cannot well be dispensed with by the professed inter- 
preter. No one, for example, can dispense with Ewald's version of 
the poetical and prophetic books ; with Gesenius's version of Isaiah ; 
with Meier's of the poetical books ; and others which have appeared 
in Germany within the last twenty years. Neither can Meyer's new 
German version of the New Testament be wanting to the appa- 
ratus of the interpreter. A specimen of a new version from the 
original Greek into English, on the basis of the received transla- 
tion, recently appeared at New York, containing the second Epistle 
of Peter, the Epistles of John and Jude, and the Revelation (1854). 
Should any doubt the superior utility of modern versions in exegesis, 
he has only to take an important and difficult passage and compare 
the renderings given of it in the LXX., Vulgate, Old Syriac, and 
De Wette. Let him take, for example, Dan. ix. 24 — 27., and care- 
fully note the difference. In Stuart's able commentary on Daniel, 
this passage is printed in various translations, ancient and modern, 
so that they may be compared with the original text, and with one 
another. See pp. 309—311. 

II. In addition to versions, the usus loquendi is retained tra- 
ditionally in the earlier commentaries and lexicons. The chief 
commentators on the Old Testament belonging here are Jarchi, 
Abenezra, Kimchi, and Tanchum of Jerusalem. The first generally 
follows the Chaldee version, and is almost wholly a traditional- Tal- 
mudic interpreter, as Gesenius remarks. 1 On this account, he gives, 
not unfrequently, absurd elucidations. Abenezra is much more in- 
dependent, and of sounder judgment. While he did not reject exe- 
getical tradition, he saw through the ordinary prejudices of his 
nation, and by the aid of a profound acquaintance w T ith the Hebrew 
language, endeavoured to avoid them. Kimchi again was a more 
skilful grammarian and industrious compiler. 

The lexicons relating to the present point are those of Rabbi 
Jonah or Abulwalid, Judah ben Karish, R. David Kimchi, and 
Pagninus. The first two wrote in Arabic. 

" In order," says Gesenius, " to read these Jewish interpreters 

1 Dissertation prefixed to his Manual Hebrew Lexicon, third edition, 1828, translated 
by Eobinson in the American Bib. Rep. for 1833. 



250 Biblical Interpretation. 

with ease, whether they wrote in Hebrew or Arabic, some practice is 
certainly necessary; and especially the latter, whose manuscripts are 
all written with Hebrew characters, and contain many grammatical 
expressions which are not found in the lexicons. But the labour 
expended in this way does not often remain unrewarded. The 
hermeneutical value of these writers depends in general on the 
sources from which they draw, viz. tradition ; Talmudic, Chaldaic, 
and Arabic usage ; and the connection : and then in particular, it 
depends on the greater or less degree of sagacity and sound judgment 
in the individual ; in which respect K. Jonah or Abulwalid holds the 
first place, while the so renowned Jarchi can properly claim only one 
of the lowest." 1 

We do not think it necessary for an interpreter in the present day 
to consult these commentators and lexicographers respecting the 
usus loquendi of the Old Testament. They are difficult of access, 
some being in MS. Even those which have been published can be 
read only by a few. The most important explanations they can 
furnish are given by Gesenius in his Lexicon and Thesaurus; and 
though that celebrated critic has not extracted all the valuable matter 
they contain, he has given the best part of it. 

For the usus loquendi of the Old Testament, the chief among the 
fathers is Jerome, whose commentaries should not be neglected. 
Next in value are perhaps those of Origen. The interpretations 
of Theodoret are excellent, furnishing much aid. The few writings 
that are extant of Theodore, the master of Theodoret, should be 
carefully studied. 

In the New Testament, the chief sources after ancient versions are 
the works of scholiasts and early glossographers ; the catenas and 
commentaries of the Greek fathers ; Josephus and Philo ; together 
with those profane writers who used the kou>7] SloXsktos, such as 
Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, Arrian, Herodian, &c. 

Scholia are short notes on ancient authors, elucidating the sense of 
words and phrases in their writings. They are of two kinds, exege- 
tical and grammatical, the former explaining very briefly the sense of 
passages, the latter illustrating the force and significancy of terms 
by means of others better known. The latter alone belong here. 

There are many scholia on the New Testament, the nature of 
which may be illustrated by an example taken from Eph. iv. 14. where 
sv Ty KvjSsia twv dvQpunrwv occurs. The word fcvfisia is explained 
by the author of a scholium iv rfj aardrw Trspupopa a>s vvv pclv tovto, 
vvv 8s sksivo ScSda-KSiV;, i. e., in unsteady tossing about so as to teach 
now this and now that thing. But Theodoret has, fcvftsiav ttjv 
7ravovpylav koXsl, i.e., he (the apostle) calls craftiness tevfisiav. In like 
manner in Eph. iv. 12., irpbs rbv KaraprLcrfjibv twv dylaiv, a scholiast 
has sis oIko8o/jL7]v /cat oo(f)sXstav, i. e., for the edification and utility, ex- 
planatory of the word tcarapTia/xov, perfecting. 

1. Some are taken from the Greek fathers, who often briefly 
explained the force of a word in their commentaries and homilies. 

1 Dissertation prefixed to Manual Hebrew Lexicon, third edition, 1828, translated by 
Robinson in the American Bib. Kep. for 1833. 



External Sources of Grammatical Interpretation. 251 

Chrysostoni's homilies in particular abound with scholia. From his 
works and those of Origen, sometimes from the writings of others 
besides, later Greek writers extracted what was said briefly on the 
sense of a passage. Thus Theodoret's commentary on Paul's four- 
teen epistles contains a collection of brief grammatical explanations 
of this sort taken from Chrysostorn, omitting what was rhetorical and 
dogmatic. Theophylact made a similar collection from the same 
father, in his commentary on the four Gospels. Euthymius followed 
the same course, with more judgment than Theophylact. When 
these scholia contain the explanations of various writers and follow 
the order of the New Testament books they are termed catevce. 
We owe the publication of many such scholia to Matthsei in his 
edition of the Greek Testament, and more recently to Cramer. 

2. Other scholia were written in the margin of MSS., within 
their text, or at the end of them. Many of these may be found in 
Wetstein's Greek Testament, but especially in Matthaei's. 

3. Exegetical scholia are chiefly doctrinal, and belong rather to 
sentences and passages than words. 

The testimony of these scholiasts generally resolves itself into the 
authority of older writers. Very few now extant are original, pro- 
ceeding from the writers themselves by whom they are given. 
Almost all are compiled from Chrysostom, Origen, and other writers 
of the third and fourth centuries. In judging of then value we 
must therefore consider whether they have been taken from a good 
writer or commentator. On the character of the original author 
their worth ultimately rests. But sometimes the source is not stated. 
In that case we must judge of the scholium solely by itself. At 
other times, the source is marked in the margin of MSS. 

The testimony of scholiasts is more valuable, other things being 
equal, in proportion as either they or those from whom they borrow 
are nearer in time to the age of the author they interpret. Morus 
however asserts that antiquity adds nothing to the value of a scholiast, 
except that he may probably have a better knowledge of ancient 
manners, rites, and history than a more recent writer would have. 
But this limitation is too great. The nearer he be to the age of the 
original author interpreted, the greater is the probability of his being 
better acquainted with the language and meaning of that writer. 
Antiquity is therefore of some value, though of course many circum- 
stances may overbalance it. In certain cases the age of a scholiast is 
entitled to considerable weight, such as where his testimony is the 
only evidence. 

In proportion as it appears from sufficient evidence that a scholiast 
was well acquainted with the language in which he writes is his in- 
terpretation entitled to greater weight. It must be admitted that 
few scholiasts understood the Hebrew language. Hence their per- 
ception of the Hebraistic colouring of New Testament Greek must 
have been very inadequate. Their notes too are often mere ascetic 
reflections of no value. In some cases they confuse by a multitude 
of various opinions, a fault from which commentators too are not free. 
In like manner much benefit cannot be derived from the substitution 



252 Biblical Interpretation. 

of one Greek word for another, which can hardly be styled interpre- 
tation. In short, there are many drawbacks to the utility of scho- 
liasts. After considering their character, age, circumstances, and 
opportunities of knowing the truth, we must still judge of their 
qualifications as interpreters by that which they produce. In some 
cases their explanations are good and skilful, in others trifling and 
worthless. They are successful in many instances; unsuccessful in more. 

A glossary is a collection of yXcoa-aat, i. e., of such words as require 
explanation because they are somewhat difficult or obscure. It 
differs from a lexicon in not giving all the words of the Greek 
language, but only those which really need interpretation. And it 
differs from scholia or short notes only in form. 

The principal ancient glossarists are Hesychius, Suidas, Phavo- 
rinus, and the authors of the Etymologicum Magnum, Photius, 
Zonaras, and Cyril of Alexandria. Out of Hesychius, whose work 
was published by Alberti and completed by Ruhnken at Leyden 
(1746, 1766), Ernesti extracted such as glosses as belonged to the 
New Testament, and illustrated them with notes (1785). The 
Lexicon of Suidas holds a middle place between scholia and glosses, 
and has been published under the editorship of Kuster, Gaisford. 
Bernhardy. The Lexicon of Phavorinus is similar to the Glossary of 
Hesychius, and is of limited use. It was published at Venice in 1712, 
The Etymologicum Magnum contains very few glosses belonging to 
the New Testament. It is chiefly occupied with giving the etymo- 
logy of words. Out of these three Ernesti also took what belonged 
to the New Testament and published it in a separate work (1786). 
The Lexicon of Zonaras was first published by Tittmann (1808). The 
Lexicon of Photius was published by Hermann (1808) ; and also 
from a transcript from the Cod. Galeanus made by Porson, in 1822, 
after the death of this eminent scholar. The Lexicon of Cyril was 
published in part by Matthasi. The same scholar also published 
glosses on the Pauline and other epistles taken from Moscow MSS., 
in his Glossaria Grosca Minora et alia Anecdota Grceca (Moscow, 
1775) and his Glossce in Epistolas Apostol. (Lips. 1779). Alberti 
published a Glossary on the books of the New Testament, the con- 
tents of which were afterwards introduced into the Lexicon of 
Hesychius (Leyden 1735). 

The testimony of these glossographers to the usus loquendi of the 
Greek Testament is not so valuable as some might suppose. Their 
explanations of words are often loose and inexact, obscure or muti- 
lated. The substitution of one term for another cannot be called in- 
terpretation. Their value must be estimated in the same manner as 
that of scholia, i. e., according to age and internal goodness. By 
age ; for the nearer a commentator lived to the apostolic times the 
more likely is it that he was able to unfold the usus loquendi. As to 
internal goodness, that may be discovered by comparing their expo- 
sitions with such as are well known. 

A few examples will now be subjoined. 

avOsvTSLV avhpos, to usurp authority over the man, 1 Tim. ii. 12. 
The verb av9svri(o, derived from av9ivrr)s, one who puts hands on 



External Sources of Grammatical Interpretation. 253 

himself (Wisdom xii. 6.), is explained by Hesychius sgovaid&cv, to 
have authority over. 

YiVTpairekia, which properly and primarily means tvittiness, face- 
tiousness, is explained in the Etymologicum Magnum /acopoXoyla, 
Kou(poTr]s. diraohsvala, i. e. foolish talking, lightness, coarseness. 
Eph. v. 4. 

siTLovatos dpros, Matt. vi. 11., daily bread. Origen explains the 
adjective sTnovcnos, rbv sis rrjv overlay av/j,/3a\\6juEvov aprov, the bread 
that contributes to subsistence. Chrysostom gives as the equivalent 
of sTrtovaios, scptf/xspos, daily. Suidas has, 6 sttI ttj ovala 7]fx,coi> 
ap/xofov 1] 6 /caOvfispivos, that which is fit for our subsistence,, or daily. 
Theophylact has, 6 kirt rrj ovala 7][mwv koX rf] avaT&asi ttjs ^uirjs 
<jv/u,f3a\\6/j,svos, that which contributes to our subsistence and to the 
sustentation of life. 

B<2ttoA.o7h&). Hesychius explains the noun denoting the action im- 
plied in this verb, viz. /3arro\oyla, by dpyoXoyia, d/caipoXoyla, idle 
speaking, unseasonable speaking; Suidas by 1) 7roXv\oyla, much 
speaking. 

Chrysostom is accustomed to subjoin to an obscure word tl sari 
tovto ; what does this mean ? and then to append an explanation. 
Thus at sv rep (pari in Coloss. i. 12., after putting the question, what 
means this ? he adds Iv jfj yvcoosi as the equivalent of sv ra> $wti, i. e. 
by knowledge while the light of the mind arises. In the same way he 
interprets So/ct/xoi, svapsaroi, virtuous, desirous of virtue. Hesychius 
however explains it by xptfo-tfios, rsXsios, useful, profitable, perfect. 

We cannot aver that these glossarists and Greek fathers were 
usually very accurate. They give the general sense, not the nicer 
shades of meaning which evince sagacity, tact, and skill. 

There is an excellent Lexicon of ecclesiastical Greek in which the 
most valuable explanations of words and expressions given by the 
fathers have been incorporated. We refer to Suicers Thesaurus Eccle- 
siasticus, in two volumes folio, 1728. With this and the best modern 
lexicons, such as Schleusner's, Bretschneider's, Wahl's, and Robin- 
son's, where glossaries and scholia have been industriously used, the 
New Testament interpreter need scarcely have recourse to the 
separate and scarce works themselves. 

III. Next to versions and early writings we may mention the analogy 
of languages as an important help in ascertaining the nsus loquendi, 
or sense of words. Here two kinds of analogy may be distinguished, 
viz. analogy of cognate languages and analogy of all languages or 
of universal language. But the latter is of a nature not to be learned 
from rules, and we shall therefore confine our remarks chiefly to the 
former. In one view, analogy of cognate languages might be treated 
as involved in a thorough knowledge of the languages" in which the 
Scriptures are written. He who is well versed in Hebrew and 
Hellenistic Greek, winch every professed interpreter should be, is 
supposed to be so far acquainted with the cognate languages as to 
know their assistance and use in determining the significations of 
words and phrases belonging to Hebrew and Greek. But in another 
view, this analogy may be treated separately and as an external 



254 Biblical Interpretation. 

source, like ancient versions. We propose at present to discuss it 
in the latter method. 

ANALOGY OF LANGUAGES. 

The languages most closely connected with Hebrew are the 
Arabic, Syriac, Chaldee, and Samaritan. All these are properly cog- 
nate dialects, as is proved by history and exemplified in their in- 
ternal structure. All lead back to one primitive tongue, from which 
they proceeded by gradual development, while receiving elements 
from foreign sources. An essential harmony exists between them 
not only in respect to single words, but characteristic peculiarities. 
All have three radicals ; and in forming the persons of the verb, the 
pronouns are either added to the root, or prefixed to it, making with 
the verb a single word. The possessive pronouns are likewise closely 
attached to the substantive in the form of suffixes. Nor are these 
the only features in which they coincide ; their idiomatic phrases 
and connected modes of expression are frequently identical. 

The Ethiopic is also kindred to the Hebrew, but in a more remote 
degree. The Talmudic-Rabbinic is likewise a distant offshoot from it. 

Such are the dialects commonly compared with Hebrew. They 
are not all equally useful and important for this purpose ; the degree 
of their relationship, the period of their duration as living languages, 
and the extent of the literature belonging to them, necessarily affect- 
ing the results of collation. 

In using them towards an explanation of the Hebrew language, 
the interpreter should proceed with caution, as their application is 
liable to abuse. Many have made mistakes from an excessive soli- 
citude to discover novelties. Affectation of acquaintance with the 
Shemiilc languages, the desire of finding new senses, and the love 
of singularity, have led several critics astray in this department. 
Some have brought into juxtaposition words consisting of similar 
letters or pronounced by the same organs of speech, which are really 
different. Certain letters in the Shemitic dialects regularly corre- 
spond to one another, and are frequently interchanged. There is a 
known relation of some letters to others, in adhering to which the 
philologist is safe ; but, when it is forsaken, danger arises. 

A comparison of these cognate languages is of less importance 
to the interpreter since the use made of them by Gesenius in 
his Lexicons. Before his time, they had not been judiciously 
applied. But he collated them very advantageously, incorporating 
the results into his lexicographical works. Most expositors will be 
satisfied with Avhat he has done in this department, though it would 
be idle to assert that he has exhausted the subject. As our know- 
ledge of languages increases through the labours of many inde- 
pendent inquirers, fresh light will be thrown on many words. 
Whenever another Hebrew Lexicon shall be published in Germany 
by a truly competent scholar, — by such men, for example, as Hup- 
field, Ewald, and Boediger, or by promising disciples trained under 
them, — we may expect this department to be advanced. In the 
meantime, the Lexicons of Gesenius will suffice for the majority, 



External Sources of Grammatical Interpretation. 255 

especially as the comparison of cognate languages is needed only in 
certain cases where sufficient materials do not exist in Hebrew itself 
or in ancient versions, for an accurate knowledge of words. l 

The Arabic claims the first place among the dialects that con- 
tribute to a right understanding of the Hebrew language, inasmuch 
as it is the richest of all the Shemitic dialects. It is reasonable to 
employ the richer in explaining one of which so little remains, and 
that little often obscure. There is greater certainty in our know- 
ledge of the Arabic. In proportion to the time that has elapsed 
since a language became extinct is there less certainty as to the 
signification of its words. The nearer it has advanced to our own 
time, there will be less liability to err in fixing their meaning. So is 
it with the Hebrew and Arabic respectively. The former has long 
since ceased to be vernacular ; the latter continues to be spoken. 

Various German writers of the last century unduly magnified the 
importance of the Arabic language as an auxiliary to the inter- 
pretation of the Old Testament. In this respect they were influenced 
by the Dutch school founded by Schultens. Schnurrer, Michaelis, 
and Eichhorn were infected with the desire to employ it too much. 
But Gesenius set limits to it. The cautious and sober application 
of Arabic presented in his Lexicons is a distinguishing feature, 
which may serve as a model for future lexicographers. His The- 
saurus especially is rich in Arabic illustration skilfully employed. 
In like manner, Lee has availed himself of the Arabic in his Hebrew 
Lexicon. These indispensable books lessen the obligation of the 
Biblical interpreter to betake himself to the study of this cognate 
language, for the purpose of becoming an accomplished Hebraist. 
Besides, the student who is familiar with the German language, and 
has access to continental commentaries, may find the oriental lan- 
guages extensively applied in expositions of separate books. Thus, 
in Gesenius's Commentary on Isaiah, Umbreit on Job, Ewald on 
certain books of the Old Testament, the parts of the Exegetical 
Handbook, a work nearly completed, Bosenmiiller's Scholia and 
others, the reader will meet with Arabic illustrations. By such 
means, the necessity of learning the language is in a great degree 
removed. Yet the field is by no means exhausted. It is ample 
enough to admit numerous independent cultivators. To rely on a 
few lexicographers and critics savours of indolence or incapacity. 
All who aspire to reach the laudable eminence of promoting the 
exegesis of the Bible must at least ascend the heights whence others 
have taken a survey, and look out for themselves. 2 

SYRIAC, CHALDEE, &c. 

The Syriac is also cognate to the Hebrew. A great number of 
words are the same in both ; while the similarity in forms, construc- 
tions, and syntactical principles, cannot be mistaken. Besides, the 
Syriac continued to be vernacular after the other, and must there- 
fore have preserved words and phrases which throw light upon 
Hebrew. But it is matter of regret, that the majority of books 
1 See Davidson's Hermeneutics, p. 643. et seqq. 2 Ibid. 648. et seqq. 



256 Biblical Interpretation. 

written in Syriac are still latent in libraries. Many are yet im- 
printed. Such as have been already published furnish valuable help 
in attaining a better knowledge of Hebrew. 

In regard to Chaldee, it should scarcely be separated from Syriac 
as another dialect. Essentially they are not different dialects. Yet 
they are now separated by characters, and by various peculiarities, 
such as the forms of words, their terminations, and the pronuncia- 
tion of single terms. In progress of time the Chaldee in Palestine 
became corrupt by the admixture of foreign elements ; so that the 
Babylonian was purer than the Jerusalem form of it. The chief 
memorials of Chaldee proper, i. e. the Babylonian dialect, are the 
few chapters of Daniel and Ezra preserved among the Biblical 
books. The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan belong to the 
same. In like manner the Babylonian Talmud, particularly the 
Mishna or text, may be added. Syriac and Chaldee have contri- 
buted to the best modern lexicons, equally with the Arabic. The 
best German commentators have also applied them. Hence what has 
been said of the Arabic applies to them also. They are less difficult 
and copious than Arabic, and are therefore more easily learned. 

As to Samaritan and Ethiopic, they are of little utility in explaining 
the Hebrew language. We shall therefore omit them in this place. 1 

The uses of cognate languages are the following: — 

1. They discover roots or primitives whose derivatives alone are 
found in the Bible, and by doing so clearly point out the significa- 
tions of these derivatives. 

??fl comes from a root unused in Hebrew, but appearing in 

Arabic, Jij*> to spit out. Hence the word means unsavoury, 

Job vi. 6. Metaphorically, insipid, vain, foolish, false, Lament, ii. 

14. The noun np?^, from the same root, folly, impiety, absurdity, 
Job i. 22., xxiv. 12.; Jer. xxiii. 13. }£% from the Arabic root 

,p!i> to be continuous and unceasing, especially spoken of flowing- 
water ; then to be assiduous, permanent, enduring. Agreeably to this 
etymology it means constant or perennial flow, Exod. xiv. 27., im- 
properly rendered strength in the English version. In Psalm lxxiv. 

15. it has the same sense, where it is inaccurately rendered, both in 
the text and margin of the English Bible, mighty rivers, rivers 
of strength. In Job xxxiii. 19., Numb. xxiv. 21., Jer. xlix. 19., 
Micah vi. 2., it is applied to other things in the same sense of peren- 
nial, enduring. The transition from this, the primary meaning, to 
strength, which is a second sense attached to the word, is easy. 
Gen. xlix. 24., Jer. v. 15. 

Schultens gives four senses of the Arabic root, viz. 1. to continue 
running as water; 2. to continue (in general), to endure; 3. (metaph.) 
to be fat; 4. (metaph.) to be inexhaustibly rich; and arranges the pas- 
sages in which the Hebrew derivative occurs under the significations 
enumerated. 2 But we remark that these are not all the senses which 
the Arabic word has, and that the first and second are one, as also 
1 Davidson's Hermeneutics, p. 656. et seqq. 2 Origines Hebrese, T. i. c. 8. 



External Sources of Grammatical Interpretation. 257 

the third and fourth. Instead of bringing Micah vi. 2. under No. 2. 
we class it under the first sense as given by us above. Job xxxiii. 
19. does not mean "multitude of his fat bones/' but perpetual strife 
or pain in his bones; and in Job xii. 19. the translation is not " the 
rich and prosperous" but " the strong" or "mighty.'''' 1 

2. They determine the significations of roots which might other- 
wise have been fixed only by conjecture. 

J?3 occurs four times in Hiphil. It is not used in Kal, and we 

derive the primary signification from the Arabic ^\j , to shine like the 

morn, to smile or to be cheerful, to he exhilarated. This explains all 
the passages in which it occurs in the Old Testament, as Amos v. 9., 
where the meaning is " who commands devastation to arise suddenly 
(like the dawn) upon the powerful," not " that strengthened," as the 
English has it. Psal. xxxix. 14., " let me cheer up or be exhilarated," 
not " that I may recover strength," as in the English. Job ix. 27., 
" I will be cheered," not as in the English, " I will comfort myself." 
Job x. 20., " that I may be cheered up or exhilarated, not " take 
comfort," as in the English. The shining of the dawn is transferred 
to the shining of the face, indicative of cheerfulness or exhilaration 
of spirit. In Ezek. xxiii. 3. 8. nb'tf has the unusual signification 

corn-primer e, as the Arabic \ l j., tegere, inire, shows. 2 

3. They discover the primary signification of roots, whose secondary 
senses alone have been noticed, though the primary would elucidate 
some passages. 

<H2, to grow, become great. The primary signification of this verb 
we learn from the Arabic J <A>-, to twist. Hence Q' , ?H{i, twisted threads 
or fringes, Deut. xxii. 12.; festoons, 1 Kings vii. 17. As the Arabic 
verb signifies secondarily to be brawny, sinewy, compact, Gerard after 
Schultens would render it in one case (Exod. xv. 16.) "by the 
brawniness or firmness of thine arm." 3 But this is quite unnecessary. 
And as it also denotes to lorestle or strive, the same critic thinks that 
it is used thus in Job vii. 17., "What is man that thou shouldest 
struggle with him ?" But here the English is correct, " magnify him," 
or " make such account of him," as Noyes translates it. 

1§j3. The primary signification of this word is derived from the 

cognate Arabic and Syriac , c*> n ^, to draw together, contract, 

bind up, roll together. The verb occurs once, viz. Isa. xxxviii. 12., 
where many render after the Chaldee 1§i?, to cut off. " I have cut 
off like a weaver my life." But it is better to follow the primary 
meaning, " 2" have rolled up like a weaver my life ;" or, " my life has 
been rolled up as by a weaver," intransitively. 4 

An improper example is given by Schultens 5 from P"iy, the pri- 
mary meaning of which he says is in Arabic to be stiff, inflexible. 

1 Gerard's Institutes of Biblical Criticism, pp. 64, 65. 

2 See' Schultens and Gerard. 3 Institutes, &c. p. 60. 

4 See Gesenius's Thesaurus, s. v., and Knohel's Commentar. 

5 De Defect. Ling. Hebr. § 217. 
VOL. II. S 



258 Biblical Interpretation. 

According to this assumption he explains Isa. xlix. 24., the inflexible 
or strenuous warrior, who, according to Gerard, is the devil! and 
Eccles. vii. 16., be not too rigid or inflexible. But the primary signi- 
fication is rather straight, than stiff, inflexible ; and it is unwarrantable 
conjecture to render the words both of Isaiah and Ecclesiastes other- 
wise than by just. In the former, the phrase employed means, the 
prey of the just one ; not lawful captive, as the English version has it. 
In the latter, be not righteous or just over much refers to a person 
who sets too high a value on his personal virtue or righteousness; 
who thinks too much of it. 

4. The kindred languages afford important aid in determining the 
meaning of such words as occur but once or very seldom in the Bible, 
especially where the ancient versions vary in translating them. 

2!iO, Psal. cxix. 131., to desire. This word occurs but once. Com- 
pare the Syriac .o . j . occurring in Luke xvi. 21., which explains the 
signification. 

*[1Q, which elsewhere means food, prey, denotes in Ezek. xvii. 9. 
green leaves, as is shown by the Syriac ^2i;_£ , which corresponds to 
(pvXXa in Mark xi. 13. and the Chaldee KEHtt. The idea implied 
in the verb from which it is derived is, something plucked or torn, 
which will apply equally to leaves plucked off the tree, or to an animal 
divided or torn for prey or food. 

D^D, a ladder; Gen. xxviii. 12. Arabic "j_^. 

ITj^Di?, Job vi. 10. "^ Arabic, he leaped, applied to a horse. 

This, together with the rendering of the Septuagint rjXXofjbrjv, and the 
saliebam of the Vulgate, leads to the sense exult: " I exult in grief 
lohich does not spare.'''' This is the meaning adopted by Gesenius, 
De Wette, Hirzel. Other interpretations may be seen in Gese- 
nius's Thesaurus. 

5. They lead to the meaning of idiomatic phrases, the precise idea 
of which cannot be discovered by the Bible itself. 

iTTin* ^5^ nt? 7l])_, Isa. xxii. 8. The proper sense of the 013 words is 
somewhat obscure. But the Arabic comes to our aid in discovering 
it. To remove or rend the veil was used by the Arabians to express 
extreme ignominy and distress. To tear off the veil from modest 
virgins and matrons was reckoned a high insult which the most 
wanton alone would dare to commit. Accordingly in the history of 
Timur or Tamerlane we find these words, \bk]\ Jlioo ,J J-i "before 
the veil be taken off, and not a remnant left you," implying the ex- 
treme disgrace and misery that would be inflicted on Egypt unless 
the Sultan surrendered. In Abulfaraj's history of the dynasties, the 
same words occur in a context showing their true meaning. When 
therefore the veil of Judah is removed, the meaning is, that Judah is 
visited with the greatest disgrace and wretchedness. 

T 1 ? X Prov. xi. 21. " Hand to hand the wicked shall not go 
unpunished." The meaning of this phrase may be ascertained from 
the Syriac "^jo \t->)> one after another. Accordingly we understand 
it to hefr'om generation to generation the wicked, &c. So Schultens, 



External Sources of Grammatical Interpretation. 259 

J. D. Michaelis, Muntinghe, Gesenius. Other explanations may be 
seen in the Commentaries of Bertheau and Stuart. 

In Psal. xvi. 2. the word l?nox has occasioned trouble to critics 
and interpreters. It may have been furnished with wrong vowels by 
the Masoretes, instead of being pointed as the second person mascu- 
line ; but it is probably right in the feminine. Accordingly there is 
an ellipsis of ^^, my soul. But the ellipsis is unusual and needs 
justification. Here we refer to the usage of Arabian writers. An 
example occurs in two lines of an ancient poet, Atnabita, which have 
been preserved by Abulfeda in his Annates, and are quoted by Rosen- 
miiller in his scholia on the Psalm. 

In applying analogy of languages to the New Testament, classical 
Greek and Latin may be considered as relevant. But they are of 
very limited use. To whatever extent they have been applied, little 
light has been thrown by them upon Greek words or expressions in 
the New Testament. Of commentators, Wetstein and Grotius for- 
merly used them most. Since their time they have been more mode- 
rately applied by all the best commentators on the New Testament, 
as De Wette, Meyer, Tholuck, Fritzsche, Riickert, Bleek, Harless, 
and others. Of lexicographers, Wahl, Bretsclmeider, and Robinson 
have made the best use of them. At present we shall only furnish a 
few examples, because the same topic will recur in another connection. 

1 Cor. xi. 10. " For this cause ought the woman to have power 
on her head, because of the angels." The expression to have power 
on the head has given rise to many conjectures. We may compare 
with it an analogous phrase in Diodorus Siculus, s^pvaav rpels (Saai- 
Xsias eirl rrjs Ksfyakrjs, having three kingdoms on the head, i. e. the 
emblems or symbols of such kingdoms, meaning diadems. In like 
manner the woman has a sign or symbol of power on her head, mean- 
ing a covering ; to intimate that she is subject to the power of the man. 

1 Cor. xv. 32. " If after the manner of men I have fought with 
beasts," &c. With the word rendered fought tvith beasts, idijpiofid- 
XV cra > compare Pompey's expression in Appian, olocs Qnqplois p,ayoixzQa, 
" with what wild beasts we are fighting." 1 

That examples however of this kind are often adduced unneces- 
sarily, while the sense of the original is as obvious without as with 
them, or unsuitably, will be apparent to every one who has given 
particular attention to them. Thus the expression Trsirpapbivos virb 
tt\v dfiapTiav, Rom. vii. 14., " sold under sin," is said by Ernesti and 
Moras to be illustrated by the Latin venditus or addictus. But it is 
plain from the context that the idea involved in sold (as a slave) is 
that of not having his own will. 

Another example adduced by the same writers and Eichhstaedt, 
Morus's editor, is the comparison of <*>$ Sid irvpos, as by fire, 1 Cor. 
iii. 15., with the ambustus, semiustus evasit of Livy and Cicero (Livy 
xxii. 35. 40. ; Cicero Verrin. i. 27.), meaning a narrow escape from 
danger. But this is taking it as icholly tropical, whereas the context 
shows that something more is in the expression. Hence Meyer 2 
rejects the assumption of this proverbial tropical sense. It is partly 

1 See Wetstein's Greek Testament, on the passage. 2 See his Commentary, 

s 2 



260 Biblical Interpretation. 

proverbial and tropical, but not wholly so, in the context of the 
Corinthian epistle. The fire of the day of Christ's coming is specifi- 
cally meant, and should not be annihilated by the assumption of a mere 
proverb- At all events, the phrase, even though it be understood as 
a proverb, is better illustrated by comparison with the Greek sk fxscrov 
irvpos rbv avSpa acoQiv in Aristid. in Apell. quoted by Robinson. 

Another example entirely irrelevant has been given by Amnion 
in his notes to Ernesti. 1 In Matt. viii. 20. we read that Christ 
had not where to lay his head, an expression sufficiently intelligible 
without the help of illustrative examples. " A clearer light," says 
Ammon, " may be thrown upon the text by a passage from Bar 
Hebraeus, p. 406., where Saladin exciting his soldiers to the storming 
of Tyre says, that no place on the coast now remained to the 
Franks, where they might lay their heads, except Tyre. And again, 
at p. 591., it is related that the Arabs stormed the city of Acre, and 
left not to the Franks, on the coasts of this sea, where they might 
lay their heads. From both these passages it is clear that the mean- 
ing in Matthew is, that Jesus had no where a safe and settled abode." 

Syriac and Greek are not cognate languages. And besides the 
passage in Matthew is as clear apart from these examples as by the 
side of them. They do not illustrate the meaning. 

To the analogy of cognate languages may be added that of all 
languages, or of language in general. There is a universal affinity 
of languages. Certain principles of construction are common to 
them, making what is termed universal grammar. A general con- 
gruity may be traced throughout the entire circle, indicating that 
they have a common basis and origin. The application of language 
in general to the interpretation of the Bible requires peculiar quali- 
fications, especially a mind capable of philosophising. Ammon in his 
notes to Ernesti shows no symptoms of true philosophy, and there- 
fore he has given a false example, to illustrate the analogy of lan- 
guages, from Rev. xv. 2., vlkov sk rov 6i]piov, which cannot, he says, 
be construed vincere ex animali, or " to conquer the animal," because 
the analogy of every language is repugnant to such a construction. 
In his view it means, to be pure from the animal, as appears from the 
Syriac version and from the Septuagint version of Psal. li. 6. 2 All 
this is irrelevant and incorrect. The meaning of the phrase is, to 
conquer the beast, to obtain the victory over it ; and the construction is 
the well-known constructio pro&gnans, examples of which are not in- 
frequent in the New Testament. Ammon's interpretation cannot be 
sustained. 

A false example is given by Morus from Ernesti 3 , when he refers 
to Gen. xlix. 10., as illustrated by Greek writers. The illustration 
of the obscure phrase, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, derives no 
light from the expression in the Greek writers alluded to. In the 
age of Plato it is said that we have sk twv irohoiv aTro-^coprja-ofisy. In 
other writers the expression is, skttoSoov or sk nrohwv yeysadai, which 
is equivalent to e medio discedere, e medis evadere, e conspectu abire, 

1 Terrot's Translation, vol. i. p. 90. 2 Ibid. vol. i. p. 87. 

8 Acroases Academics, vol. i. p. 181. 



External Sources of Grammatical Interpretation. 261 

that is, to disappear. Hence it is thought that the general meaning 
of Moses may be, that a native lawgiver or expounder of the law, 
teacher or scribe (intimating the ecclesiastical polity of the Jews), 
should not be wanting to that people, until Shiloh come. 

All this is entirely irrelevant, and fails to elucidate the expression, 
which we need not at present attempt to explain. We believe that 
the correct interpretation of it has been given by Schmidt, Justi, De 
"Wette, Schumann, Von Bohlen, Baumgarten, Maurer, Knobel. 
The other expositions may be seen in Knobel's Commentary. 

We do not attach importance or utility to the general cautions 
and admonitions given by Eichstadt with respect to the analogy of 
languages in general. No interpreter will be much, if at all, bene- 
fited by them. Yet as some readers may wish to see them, we shall 
merely mention them by way of conclusion to the present section. 

1. It is not sufficient to have in the memory a stock of words with 
their significations as given in the Lexicons ; but we should have a 
good knowledge of the universal genius and usage of languages, 
derived from the best writers in each, as well as their interpreters. 

2. Words, phrases, and tropes of any ancient language are to be 
judged of by the internal character of the language itself in which 
they occur ; not by that of more recent languages, which are sepa- 
rated from each one of the more ancient, both by an interval of time 
and their own peculiar nature. 

3. Since even ancient languages differ in many respects, we should 
not imitate the superstition of those interpreters who have endea- 
voured to explain the origin and signification of words from terms 
entirely different, being led astray by a similitude in sound and 
letters often very slight and precarious. 

4. When the sense of words can be ascertained in any particular 
language by the means which itself furnishes, it is wrong to rest 
upon the analogy of various languages, except for the purpose of 
confirmation. Analogy should be resorted to only when the direct 
and ordinary means furnished by the testimonies of writers them- 
selves, by versions, and by the annotations of scholiasts and lexico- 
graphers, prove inadecpiate. 

5. We should take care in every case that real similitude exists. 
Hence we ought to compare not merely similar writers of different 
languages, but also similar modes of speech — such as show in them- 
selves some similarity of idea, and which are employed either about 
the same things or things closely analogous. 1 

These cautions will not teach much ; but they are the dictate of 
common sense notwithstanding. The philosophical critic and inter- 
preter will unconsciously proceed in the path they prescribe ; the 
mere verbal expositor will scarcely be prevented by them from 
numerous errors, because his mind is not fitted to think in the direc- 
tion they indicate. Some intellects are too narrow to spread out 
into such comprehensiveness. 

Josephus and Philo have also been used for the purpose of illus- 
trating the usus loquendi of the Greek Testament. But as the lan- 
1 Mori Acroases, vol. i. p. 182. 



262 Biblical Interpretation. 

guage of the former is good Greek, and has little resemblance to the 
Hebraistic diction of the New Testament, it cannot afford much 
benefit to the sacred interpreter. Yet Ernesti says that here and 
there words and phrases occur which may be compared with the 
Greek Testament. The same however holds good with regard to 
all Greek writers. Krebs has extracted the most appropriate exam- 
ples in his Observationes e F. Josepho (1755). Of less value is the 
Spicilegium s. Excerpta ex Fl. Josepho ad N. T. Illustrationem, 
made by Ottius, and inserted in the second volume of Havercamp's 
edition. We cannot perceive much utility in them, as far as they 
contribute to a better understanding of expressions in the New Tes- 
tament. In interpreting tilings, the case is otherwise. Similar re- 
marks apply to Philo, who also wrote in good Greek, after the model 
of Plato and Demosthenes, and therefore there is little relationship 
between his diction and that of the Greek Testament. Some simi- 
larity however may be observed, especially in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, as Carpzov long since pointed out. The most useful 
phrases for comparison were extracted and published separately by 
Loesner, in his Observatt. ad. N. T. e Philone Alex. (1777), to 
which may be added the remarks of Kiihnius (1785). 

We shall give a few examples from these two writers. 

2 Tim. ii. 4. Xva ra> arpaToXoyrjcravri apsarj, that he may please him 
who has called him to be a soldier. The verb arparokoyico here used 
is often employed by Josephus in the same sense, viz., to call to arms, 
to stir up to fight. 

The word icprj/juspla in Luke i. 5. 8. means a family or class of 
priests which ministered daily in the temple for eight days in suc- 
cession. Josephus calls them irarpias, where he explains the arrange- 
ment. This is the word which is also used as the interpretation of 
£(p7]{ispia by Suidas. (See Jos. Antiq. vii. 14. 7.) In the Septua- 
gint it is taken in another acceptation, viz., the daily service of these 
priests in the temple. 

In Luke xiv. 8. and 2 Tim. ii. 25. yJyrroTZ should be translated 
perhaps. Examples of this occur in Philo, and are given by Loesner. 
Profane writers too use it in the same sense as Kypke has shown. 

QvkaKTrjpLov, phylactery. For the meaning of this word see Jose- 
phus, Antiq. iv. 8. 13. It occurs in Matt, xxiii. 5. 

In Acts xxvii. 9. we read of the fast, ttjv vrjarslav. For the 
explanation of the word in this connection we must refer to Josephus, 
from whom we learn when it was kept, viz., in the autumn of every 
year, or the great day of expiation, the tenth of the month Tisri. 
Hence it is termed, by way of eminence, r) vrjarsia, both in Josephus 
and Philo. 

In relation to the principal writers among the so-called noivoi, viz., 
Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, and Arrian, collections have been made 
by Raphelius from Polybius and Arrian, and from Xenophon and 
Herodotus besides ; by Munthe from Diodorus Siculus ; and by Eis- 
ner, Palairet, and Kypke from several Greek authors. But good 
lexicons and commentaries, since the publication of these works, 
have generally incorporated the best materials so collected. Hence 
the works themselves have been well nigh superseded. 



External Sources of Grammatical Interpretation. 263 

Mark xiv. 72. sTrifiaXoov 'iickcusv, " when he thought thereon he 
wept." Here the participle has been explained in numerous ways. 
But the sense given in our English translation conies very near the 
right one ; when he had taken it, i. e., the saying of Jesus, into con- 
sideration, he wept, &c. Sometimes the verb in this sense has rov 
vovv or tt]v hiavoiav connected with it : sometimes it is used abso- 
lutely. Examples occur in Asterius with vovv ; in Galen with 
hiavolav ; in Polybius, Theophrastus, Olympiodorus, and others, 
without a noun appended. They may be seen in Wetstein. All 
other interpretations of the word are wrong. 

Acts xvii. 31. ttlcttiv nrapaax^v iracnv, " having procured faith 
from all," i. e., having caused all to believe. This phrase, ttigtiv ira- 
psxzw TCVL > is found in Polybius iv. 33. 7., and in Josephus, Antiqq. 
ii. 9. 4. in the same sense. " Giving assurance to all " is an incor- 
rect interpretation of it. 

1 Tim. ii. 10. and vi. 21. sTrayysWo^at, is employed in the sense of 
profess, which the verb has not elsewhere in the New Testament. 
But it occurs in the same acceptation in Xenophon, Mem. i. 2. 7., 
and in Diogenes Laertius, Prooem. § 12. 

Luke xii. 58. Sbs ipyaaiav, "give diligence" or endeavour. This 
is a mere Latinism, da operam. Hence Salmasius, Tittmann, and 
others are wrong in explaining it give tribute or tax. 

Care must be taken in applying this source of illustration, else 
mistakes will be readily made, as has been done in John v. 5., sywv 
iv rfj aaOsvsla, which means in classic Greek to be ill. But the right 
construction is to take srrj as the object of h%6w in this passage ; not 
to connect it closely with iv rfj aaOsvda. Had the latter been in- 
tended, the article would not have been before aadevsia ; and it is 
doubtful whether the participle sx cov would have been employed. 

Another improper example is s^e /is irapyTrjiiivov, Luke xiv. 18., 
have me excused, which Morus, Kuinoel, and others have pronounced 
a Latinism, habe me excusatum. But it is not so. 

TVe cannot believe that Pagan writers have been of much use in 
elucidating the phraseology of the sacred writers. The works of 
Baphelius, Munths, Eisner, Palairet, and Kypke have contributed 
comparatively little to that result, though they have been frequently 
held up as of great importance. Still less have other classical pro- 
ductions, not compared by these writers, tended to throw light on the 
phraseology either of the Old or New Testament. The examples 
given by Lowth and Grotius are of no use. We freely allow that 
Pagan writers " use words and phrases coincident with or analogous 
to those of the sacred writers," but entirely demur to the assertion 
that they also " enable us to ascertain the meaning of the sacred 
writers, or show us the force and propriety of their expressions." 
Take an example of what has been stated here, viz., Isa. i. 5. : — 

On what part will je smite again ? will ye add correction ? 
The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. 

Lowth's Translation. 

Here we are informed that the sentiment and image are exactly 
the same with those of Ovid deploring his exile to Atticus : — 



264 Biblical Interpretation. 

Ego continuo fortunse vulneror ictu: 
Vixque habet in nobis jam nova plaga locum. 

Epist. ex Ponto, lib. ii. ep. vii. 41, 42. 

The prophet's sentiment and image are also said to be illustrated 
by the following line of Euripides : — 

Te/Jico Kaxav 5tj • k' ovKer' etrfl' birr\ TeBrj. 

I am full of miseries : there is no room for more. 

Here. Furens, v. 1245. 1 

As far as we can see, the meaning of Isaiah is as clear by itself as 
in the light of these parallels. They add nothing to the force, 
significance, or illustration of it. They express a similar idea, and 
that is all. 

Neither is it at all obvious, from any examples furnished by Lowth, 
that the images employed by Pagan writers " throw light on the 
import " of the same images as used by sacred writers. Thus 
in Isa. ii. 4. 

They shall beat their swords into ploughshares, 

And their spears into pruninghooks: 

Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, 

Neither shall they learn war any more. 

The description of well established peace by the image of beating 
their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruninghooks is 
poetical and has been employed by the Roman poets. Thus Martial 
has an epigram (lib. xiv. ep. xiv.) entitled Falx ex Ense — the sword 
turned into a pruninghook. 

The prophet Joel has reversed the image, applying it to war pre- 
vailing over peace (iii. 10.), and so has Virgil. 

Non ullus aratro 
Dignus honos : squalent abductis arva colonis, 
Et curvas rigidum falces conflantur in ensem. 

Georg. lib. i. 506—508. 
Dishonour'd lies the plough; the banish'd swains 
Are hurried from the uncultivated plains; 
The sickles into barbarous swords are beat. 2 

How Martial's Falx ex Ense or these lines of Virgil " throws light 
on the import of the image " it is difficult to see. They elucidate 
nothing respecting it. Nor are Lowth's additional examples more 
significant or useful. They amount in reality to nothing. 

With these ideas we reckon it superfluous to quote the cautions 
which Beck gives, in applying the productions of the Greek and 
Latin writers to discover the usus loquendiy especially as they seem to 
us worthless in themselves. As a specimen of these cautions take the 
first, and surely it will suffice to show what they may be valued at. 

1. Any profane writers are not to be promiscuously used. 3 

The benefit to be derived from Pagan authors in elucidating the 
Scriptures does not lie in their application to the ascertaining of the 
usus loquendi, nor in contributing to the interpretation of passages. 
It consists in throwing light on their truth and credibility. These 
works belong to the department of the evidences, where they may 
sometimes be applied to advantage. In other respects, with a few 

1 See Lowth's Note on i. 5. 2 See his Note on ii. 4. 

3 Sec Beck's Monogrammata Hermeneutices Librorum Novi Foederis, p. 1 48. 



External Sources of Grammatical Interpretation, 265 

exceptions such as those already specified, they do not enable the 
interpreter to ascertain the force, meaning, or propriety either of 
expressions or images. Of much greater use and importance in the 
interpretation of words and phrases is the Septuagint version. The 
truths of revealed religion were first expressed in Greek by it, and 
therefore the LXX. must be the basis of a correct knowledge of the 
Hebraised idiom in which the New Testament is written. The first 
Christain authors used the version in question. They were more or 
less acquainted with its diction, which they copied or imitated in 
many instances. As the Apocrypha belongs to this version, our 
remarks apply to it as a part of the Septuagint, for there is little 
doubt that the language and ideas too of the New Testament writers 
have been influenced and modified by these books to some extent. 
Reminiscences of them appear in the Christian writings, as has been 
proved by various writers, by Stier, Nitzsch, and Bleek. 

In comparing the LXX. with the New Testament, we now possess 
an excellent and copious collection of passages which has super- 
seded former attempts of the same kind, viz. Grinfield's Novum Tes- 
tamentum Grrecum, editio Hellenistica, 2 vols. 1843, where the 
successive verses are illustrated. 

njriy, which is the Hebrew representative of Bi/caioauvr], has given 
rise to a peculiar sense of the Greek word in one or two instances in 
the New Testament, as in Matt. vi. 1. ; 2 Cor. ix. 9, 10., upright- 
ness or piety as manifested in acts of beneficence or bounty, liber- 
ality. The Greek word is so employed in the LXX., in 1 Sam. 
xii. 7., Psal. xxiv. 5., Tobit ii. 14., Baruch v. 9. In other places 
iXsTl/jLoavvr] is used by the translators. 

'Attsvclvti in Acts xvii. 7. signifies contrary to or against, taken 
from the Hebrew fl&Op?, which is translated by it in 2 Sam. x. 17., 
Sirach xxxvii. 4. KvXoyca is sometimes used in the New Testament 
for gift or bounty, as in 2 Cor. ix. 5. This is taken from the LXX., 
who employ it in the same way as the representative of HlD'n?, Gen. 
xxxiii. 11., 1 Sam. xxv. 27. The epithet irpwroroKos in the New 
Testament is taken from the LXX., who employ it to express the 
meaning of "TD3, and apply it both properly and tropically, just as 
the Christian writers do. It is an epithet applied to Christ in various 
epistles, just as the LXX. use it of Messiah in Psal. lxxxix. 27. 

In explaining words and phrases in the New Testament by means 
of the Septuagint care must be taken not to press the comparison to 
excess, nor to use it in cases where the context or some other thing 
appears to stand in the way. Thus in 1 Cor. ii. 9. the verb avyicplvoj 
means to connect or put together, and the sense of the phrase there is 
" connecting a spiritual form with spiritual things ; " or giving 
spiritual things a form which is spiritual, and therefore suited to 
them, instead of enunciating them in words of worldly wisdom. But 
some expositors take from the Septuagint use of Sia/cplva) another 
meaning, and apply it here, viz. interpret or explain. See Gen. xl. 8. 
16. 22., xli. 12. 15. ; Dan. v. 12., and the Hebrew ^DS. In this 
case it is unnecessary to have recourse to the Greek. The other 
meaning, which is the ordinary one of the verb, is sufficient. 

The word iXacmjpiov is used by the LXX. as the representative of 



266 Biblical Interpretation. 

mSD, the lid of the ark or the mercy-seat. It has the same sense in 
Hebrews ix. 5. But when some expositors apply it to Romans iii. 
25., they appear to us in error. It rather denotes expiatory sacrifice. 
Hence we do not translate it in the latter place propitiatory, with 
Hammond and many others. 

All the best lexicons have made use of the LXX. in explaining 
the diction of the New Testament, especially Bretschneider's and 
Robinson's. There is also a considerable collection of passages and 
materials towards comparison in Schleusner's. With these instru- 
ments in his hands accompanied by Grinfield's work already men- 
tioned, and the most recent commentaries as De Wette's and 
Meyer's, the interpreter need scarcely have recourse to the Septua- 
gint and apocryphal books for himself. The field has been carefully 
traversed and reaped by others; and he has only to use with judg- 
ment the abundant harvest collected. 

In addition to these sources of the asus loquendi in the Greek 
Testament the apocryphal productions of the Old Testament may 
also be consulted, such as the Testament of the Tioelve Patriarchs and 
the Psalter of Solomo?i. So also the like apocryphal works con- 
nected with the New Testament, as the Acts of Thomas the Apostle, 
the Gospel of Nicodemus, the Protevangelium of James, &c. These 
spurious writings have been published more or less fully by Fabri- 
cius, Birch, Thilo, and Tischendorf. Bretschneider has partially 
used them in his lexicon. But they have not been fully applied as 
yet. Those recently printed by Tischendorf have not been em- 
ployed by any lexicographer. But their value is inconsiderable. 

The following principles founded on the preceding chapters are 
taken from Davidson's Sacred Hermeneutics. 1 If they do not lead 
the interpreter to the correct sense in every case, they may at least 
prevent him from falling into error. 

Apart from versions, the usual signification of a word or phrase 
should be followed except there be some necessity for deserting it. 
This necessity becomes apparent, — 

1. When the context obviously rejects the current signification. 

2. When a sentiment inconsistent with one parallel place or more 
would arise from adhering to the ordinary acceptation. 

When the vicinity and parallel passages coincide with common 
usage there is strong evidence that no other usus loquendi should be 
sought. 

Taking versions into account, it may be affirmed, — 

1. That the signification of a word found in only one version, if 
agreeable to its general usage and to the context, should be admitted. 

2. The signification of a word given in none of the ancient ver- 
sions, provided it be the usual one and recommended by the con- 
nection, should be adopted. 

3. A signification supported by all the versions, but contrary to 
the usus loquendi and the context, must be rejected. 

4. The signification belonging to an curat; Xsjo/msvov in all or in a 
majority of versions, should be received as correct. 

1 Page 641. 



Biblical Exegesis. 267 

5. When parallels, context, and versions agree in restricting a term 
or phrase to a certain sense, that sense should be received. 

6. When a signification attached to a word in all other places of 
the Bible is opposed to the connection in a particular place, it cannot 
be admitted, though sanctioned by the best versions. 

7. Where context, parallels, and versions appear to disagree among 
themselves relative to the meaning of a word in a certain place, the 
context should have greater weight than either of the other two, 
provided it testify clearly and explicitly in favour of a certain sense. 
The next authority is due to parallels ; and the third to versions. But 
the three seldom clash in one place ; and where two agree in opposi- 
tion to the third, they should be followed. 

The signification sanctioned by parallels and versions cannot be 
opposed to the context. It can only appear contradictory to it. 



CHAP. VII. 

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS. 



Having ascertained the signification of single words and phrases 
we have next to inquire into the meaning of several joined together 
making a proposition or period. This is done in the same man- 
ner and by the same appliances. But there are some things to 
be attended to before the direct interpretation of sentences and 
paragraphs, which may be regarded as preliminary, but nevertheless 
essentially contribute to the process itself. 

In the first place, the expositor should settle the right construc- 
tion of a sentence. This includes the proper punctuation and divi- 
sion of the separate clauses it is composed of, the supplying of neces- 
sary ellipses and marks of interrogation, with the adjustment of all 
the parts in relation to the subject and predicate. If subordinate 
clauses be attached to the subject and predicate, they must be care- 
fully noted, and the whole arranged in proper order for finding the 
writer's meaning. In thus preparing a sentence it should be borne in 
mind, that punctuation is no part of Scripture itself, the original MSS. 
being without it ; that some word or words are often left to be sup- 
plied which are required to fill up the sense ; that marks of interro- 
gation were not in the autographs, readers being left to their own 
judgment in finding where statements are made in the form of ques- 
tions; and that minor clauses, forming short propositions in them- 
selves, are often put around the body or trunk of a sentence. 

In the Old Testament text, there is a punctuation ready to our 
hand, which was elaborated long ago by many learned Jews. The 
Masoretes have given their ideas of the mode in which the Hebrew 
Scriptures should be understood, by means of certain marks and ac- 
cents. In the Greek Testament also, there is a system of punctu- 
ation, differing, it is true, in various respects in different critical 
editions, but substantially alike in all. Able and pious mea have 



268 Biblical Interpretation. 

contributed to the formation of both. Hence neither should be hastily 
abandoned. Important and imperious reasons must call for and justify 
a departure from either. 

In the case of ellipses, we should also be well assured that they 
are necessary before they be supplied. If there be obvious chasms 
in the construction or meaning, they ought to be filled up ; but the 
frequent assumption of them should be avoided. Sober expositors 
will not readily fall into the error of multiplying ellipses. 

In like manner, interrogations must be cautiously introduced. It 
will not satisfy the demands of a right exegesis to insert them where 
they seem to intrude. Even in difficult cases they must be sparingly 
resorted to. If the words themselves or their vicinity give no indi- 
cation of an interrogation either by their character or position, it is 
hazardous to call it into existence. 

After these preliminary cautions we proceed to give illustrative 
examples. 

Hos. vi. 5. Here the sense of the common reading is obscure, for 
it means literally, " and thy judgments, the light goeth forth." But 
by dividing the words thus, ^V': "li&o '•tJS^O-l, " and my judgment 
shall go forth as the light," an appropriate sense is presented. This 
division is sanctioned by the LXX., Chaldee, and Syriac; and by it 
the connection of ideas is well preserved. It is also adopted by Ken- 
nicott and Hitzig. 

Johnvii.21, 22. "I have done one work and ye all marvel. 
Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision," &c. Here Bta tovto 
is joined with the following words Mcovcnp SsScoksv, " therefore Moses 
gave you circumcision." But according to this division there is 
nothing to which hta tovto can well be referred. The reason is not 
apparent. It is much better to connect Bia tovto with the preceding 
word 0av/id%ST£ : " I did one work and ye all marvel on account of 
it." Thus we abandon the old punctuation with Theophylact, Knapp, 
De Wette, Lachmann, Theile, Tischendorf, and others. 

Epistle to the Romans ix 5. &v ol zraTspss, /cal k% 3>v 6 Xpicrro? to 
kotcl crdpfca, 6 (bv sttI ttcwtwv 6sbs svkoyrjTos els tovs alwvas' , Afxrjv. 

" Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh 
Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen." 

The common punctuation of the verse has just been given. But 
there are two other methods of dividing it, viz. 

to koto, crapica. 'O tov sin k. t. X. and, 
6 oiv sirl iravTU>v. %sos sv\oyr)Tos k. t. \. 

According to these the rendering would be, 

" Of whom is Christ according to the flesh. God who is over all 
be blessed for ever." 

" Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all. God 
be blessed for ever." 

Agreeably to the second and third methods a doxology to God 
the Father is contained in the latter clause. But there are valid 
objections to this. In almost all doxologies, the predicate, i. e. the 
adjective blessed, stands first in order, preceding the subject. This 






Biblical Exegesis. 269 

usage is observed in the LXX., the Apocrypha, and the Greek Testa- 
ment, So Luke i. 68., 2 Cor. i. 3., Ephes. i. 3., 1 Pet. i. 3. In 
like manner the opposite formula cursed be &c, sirucaraparbs, stands 
first, as in Gal. iii. 10 — 13. The only exception to the order uni- 
formly observed is in Psal. lxviii. 20. ; for Fritzsche's other Old 
Testament examples are not apposite, as Tholuck has shown. 1 This 
argument is drawn out by Flatt 2 and Harless. 3 That it is weighty 
we must believe with Tholnck ; though Ivollner, Olshausen, Ruckert, 
and Fritzsche regard it as worthless. 

Again, the position of Osbs should be different according to this pro- 
posed punctuation. In other doxologies where the word occurs it 
follows the adjective svXoyrjrbs immediately. Compare 2 Cor. i. 3. ; 
Eph. i. 3. ; 1 Pet. i. 3. 

Still further, it should have the article prefixed. In the passages 
already quoted and other similar ones, it has the article. 

For these and other reasons the punctuation which converts the 
sentence into a doxology cannot be admitted. They lie against both 
methods of division. The usual punctuation which prevailed in the 
ancient church, with Irenauis, Origen, Tertullian, Athanasius, Chry- 
sostom, and Theodoret, and which is pronounced the most natural in 
a grammatical point of view by Usteri, Beck, Olshausen, and De 
Wette who reject it, must be followed. 4 

In the following places the usual punctuation has been unneces- 
sarily disturbed, and a worse proposed in its place. 

Psal. xvii. 4. ; TD?'^ 131? D™ ni^y? 1 ? : *a "OK bz »nbr KXt?Pr^>3, 
" I am purposed that my mouth shall not transgress. Concerning 
the works of men by the word of thy lips I have kept me, &c." 

Bauer 5 , neglecting the accents and separation of verses, translates 
thus : " Thou hast not found crimes against me ; my mouth does not 
pass to the evil deeds of man ; " i. e. I do not approve of the crimes 
of others. But the usage of ">3V does not justify this sense. The 
meaning is much better with the Masoretic punctuation than it 
would be by any alteration : " As to the works of man (i. e., sinful 
man), by the word of thy lips I have kept away from the paths of the 
violent." 

Mark ix. 23. "Jesus said unto him: To, si Suvaaat, TTicnzvaav 
irdvra SvvaTa ra> ttmttsvovti" Here Knatcbbull proposes to separate 
Bvvaaat from iriaTsvaai, and to render the words thus : " If thou 
canst ? Believe, &c." This is too artificial. 

In Rom. viii. 20, 21., the present ordinary punctuation is aXXa. 8ia 
tov vTTord^avTa stt ikiriSr ore teal avrr) k. t. \. To facilitate the 
sense many prefer to join on closely with eXttIBc, so as to give the 
meaning in hope that. Notwithstanding the weighty names in favour 
of this punctuation, we should hesitate to abandon the common one 
for it. The conjunction may well begin a new sentence, as Tholuck 
has shown. 

1 Kommentar zum Briefe Pauli an die Roemer, p. 492., ed. 1842. 

2 Opnscula, p. 394. 

3 Commentar ueber den Brief Pauli an die Ephesier, p. 4. et seqq. 

4 See Tholuck's Kommentar, p. 483. et seqq., and Philippi's Commentar, p. 141. 
et seqq. zweite Abtheilung. 5 Critica Sacra, p. 180. 



270 Biblical Interpretation. 

1 Tim. iii. 16. " But if I tarry long, that thou may est know how 
thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the 
Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. And 
without controversy great is the mystery of godliness : God was 
manifest in the flesh, &c." 

Many have disturbed the old and usual punctuation here, according 
to which the pillar and ground of the truth is a predicate of the 
Church. But after repeated consideration of the new division pro- 
posed, viz., " the pillar and ground of truth, and confessedly great is 
the mystery of godliness," &c, we prefer the ancient division. It ap- 
pears to us that the predicate consisting thus of two substantives, viz., 
jiillar and ground, and then of an adjective subjoined great, which is 
much weaker than pillar and ground, creates a difficulty in the way 
of the construction proposed. It is awkward and drawling. 1 

Besides adjusting the punctuation, ellipses should be supplied. 

Psal. xlix. 18. " Though while he lived, he blessed his soul: and 
(others) will praise thee," &c. ; that is, (others) will praise thee because 
thou doest good to thyself, sarcastically. 

Psal. xvi. 2. " Thou hast said unto the Lord," my soul, ^03 
understood, as the second feminine of the verb suggests. 

Isa. xlviii. 11. ?n.''. T8 ^> " f° r now should it be polluted," i. e. 
my glory, **1^5. 

Psal. xc. 13. "Return, O Lord; how long" (wilt thou forsake 
us)? 

Eph. i. 13. " In whom ye also (have obtained an inheritance). 
The verb sk\7]P(o9t]T£ is supplied from what precedes. 

Rom. iii. 8. To the verb ^Xaacprj/xou/xsOa supply ttolsIv. 

Eph. v. 14. Ato \sysi. Supply ypafyrj, " the Scripture saith." 

Ellipses have often been supplied where there is no need of them. 

Psal. x. 3. " For the wicked boasteth of his heart's desire, and 
blesseth the covetous, whom the Lord abhors." Here whom should 
not be supplied in the English version. It ought to be translated, 
" The covetous blesses, despises Jehovah," i. e., in thanking Jehovah 
he despises him. 

Prov. xiii. 11. Some understand gotten or acquired. So our 
English translators, and in the same manner Bertheau and Stuart. 
But this is aside from the true sense, which is, " wealth is lessened 
by vanity, but whosoever gathers into the hand increases it." So C. 
B. Michaelis and De "VYette rightly translate, without supplying any 
ellipsis. Noyes 2 goes far astray in rendering, " wealth dwindles 
away sooner than a breath," &c. 

Prov. xxx. 15. " The horseleech has two daughters; 

1 Give ; ' ' Give.' " 

Here saying has been improperly supplied. Give, Give is the name 
of the two daughters. 

John i. 10. " He was in the world, and the world was made by 
him, and the world knew him not." 6 k6<t/j,os St' avrov syspsro. Some 

1 See De Wette's Exeget. Handbuch. 

2 New Translation of the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles. Boston, 1S46. 






Biblical Exegesis. 271 

Unitarians understand irs^wrLdfievos after sjsvsto, as if the meaning 
were, " the world by him was enlightened." The preceding verse 
describes Christ as the light which lighteneth every man, (jycorl^si ; 
and it is therefore supposed that a participle may be borrowed from 
this verb and supplied here. In support of such construction parallel 
cases are adduced, as Acts xxii. 28. The tribune who apprehended 
the apostle Paul was surprised at the prisoner claiming the pri- 
vileges of a Roman citizen, and observed to him, " For a great sum 
obtained I this freedom ; " to which the apostle replied, " But I was 
even so born," sya> Ss /cat ysysvvrjfjLai. The example is not analogous. 
The predicate of the preceding clause is never so understood except 
when it might be appropriately expressed in English by the par- 
ticle so. 

Heb. ix. 10. " Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers 
washings," &c. Here the words which stood need not be supplied. 
The correct translation of the passage is, " During which (time) were 
offered gifts and sacrifices, that were not able to make the worshipper 
perfect with respect to conscience, being imposed in addition to meats 
and drinks and divers washings — ordinances of the flesh — only 
until the time of reformation." 

With regard to interrogations, their right insertion or omission 
often contributes much to the general sense of a passage. 

John xii. 27. " Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say ? 
Father, save me from this hour? But for this cause came I unto 
this hour." Here a mark of interrogation after sk ttjs &>pas ravrrjs 
greatly improves the interpretation ; save me from this hour f So 
Knapp, Theile, and Lachmann punctuate, according to the idea of 
Grotius ; and so Campbell translates. The common version does not 
consist with the known character of Jesus. 

Sometimes interrogations have been improperly substituted, as in 
Gen. iv. 23., where Onkelos has, " Have I slain a man to my wound- 
ing," &c. Meaning that he had not. It is impossible to clear Lamech 
of the guilt of murder in this manner. It is also unnecessary to read 
Micah v. 1. interrogatively, as the Syriac version and Newcome do; 
" Art thou too little to be among the thousands of Judah," &c. The 
English version supplying though is preferable. 

In adjusting the punctuation and ellipses, we should be guided by 
the connection, parallel passages, grammatical considerations, quota- 
tions, and ancient versions. Grammatical considerations and the 
context are the most important. The process is rather preparatory 
to the actual interpretation of a passage ; yet it involves some expo- 
sition. The general sense of the place we wish to interpret is brought 
to bear upon the punctuation. Considerations which we might 
desire to keep in abeyance so that we should be perfectly free and 
impartial are interwoven with the exposition itself, modifying and 
affecting it to some extent. The powers and habits of man are such 
that he cannot divest himself of certain thiogs which must give a 
direction to his interpretations of Scripture. 

Having settled these preliminaries, the next business is to ascer- 
tain the proper construction of a period — the subject and predicate 



272 Biblical Interpretation. 

with their adjuncts, the clauses attached to the body of the sentence, 
and the modifying links of connection. 

We have already spoken of the subject and predicate, in finding 
which a knowledge of the grammar of the Hebrew and Greek lan- 
guages is required. Let us take some examples. 

Psal. xc. 11. Here we have one short interrogative sentence, im- 
plying a strong negation. The sentence is, " Who knows the power 
of thine anger ?" For the sake of emphasis, it is repeated with a 
stronger term than that rendered anger, viz., wrath, outburst of 
wrathful feeling ; but without the repetition of the verb hnoios, 
" Who knows thy wrath ?" There is however a modifying clause 
annexed to the sentence, according to thy fear, i. e., " Who knows 
thine anger to such a degree as reverence for God requires." The 
English version, by making two separate propositions in the verse, 
exhibits one proposition which cannot be explained intelligibly, even 
according to thy fear so is thy ivrath. There is but one expressed 
in the form of an interrogation, with a modifying clause appended. 

Psal. lxxxiv. 5 — 7. These three verses form a passage confessedly 
difficult. Bishop Jebb endeavours to elucidate it by means of the 
introverted parallelism in Hebrew poetry, according to which the 
first and sixth hues come together thus : — 

Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee, 
He shall appear before God in Zion; 

while the intermediate four lines may be accounted parenthetical ; 
the second being constructively parallel with the fifth, and the third 
with the fourth. l But we are persuaded that this artificiality of 
construction was not thought of or designed by the sacred writer. 
The proposition at the commencement, Blessed the man who has 
strength in thee, is a general sentence applicable to all the pious, and 
serving as a key-note to what follows. The remaining clauses are 
subjoined as descriptive of the pilgrim-journeys to Jerusalem, in 
order to worship Jehovah in his temple. The sense is continuous 
and gradational, each line carrying forward the delineation of the 
travellers advancing to the holy city. Clause is added to clause to 
denote their progress. First, the ways leading to Jerusalem are in 
their hearts ; they think of undertaking the journey, and long for the 
time when it is to be undertaken. Next, when they have actually 
begun, passing through the valley of tears they make it a spring ; so 
little do they regard the obstacles that the parched and sandy desert 
becomes a watered valley ; also the rain covers it with blessings. God 
does not withhold rain from the valley. There is no want of water 
or of pastures for the beasts of burden. They shall go from strength 
to strength. Instead of being weary they make continual advances, 
increasing in strength as they draw nearer to the end of their course. 
Finally, they shall appear before God in Zion, attaining to the sum- 
mit of their desires, and enjoying the immediate presence of Jehovah. 
Thus the construction is so framed as to furnish a continuous and 
progressive sense. Whatever difficulty lies in one clause, viz., the 

1 Sacred Literature, p. 55. 






Biblical Exegesis. 21 '3 

rain covers it with blessings, there is no difficulty in the general ar- 
rangement of the whole passage, the sudden change of number, first 
from singular to plural, and then from plural to singular, showing 
nothing more than that the singular is generic or collective. Setting 
out with a general proposition, which constitutes the body of the 
sentence, clause after clause is accumulated upon it, until the full 
force of the happiness mentioned is vividly seen and realised. 

Psal. xvi. 3. The obscurity of this verse is well known. We look 
upon it as a sentence or proposition itself, and do not join it closely 
to the preceding one as Alexander does ; nor to the following one 
with Ewald. The speaker says — and this is the trunk of the sentence — 
My delight is in the saints. These are further specified as the excellent 
ones or nobles ; they are also in the land, the holy land, of which they 
are the Israel. The sentence however is peculiarly constructed, 
viz., As to the saints ivho are in the land, even the excellent, all my 
delight is in them. 

Rom. xi. 33—35. " O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom 
and knowledge of God ! how unsearchable are his judgments, and 
his ways past finding out ! For who hath known the mind of the 
Lord ? Or who hath been his counsellor ? Or who hath first given 
to him, and it shall be recompensed unto him again ? " 

The apostle's exclamation of adoring wonder regards three things, 
the depth of Jehovah's riches or rich mercy ; the depth of his wisdom ; 
and the depth of his knowledge. The latter part of the thirty-third 
verse contains an additional exclamation, embodying the same idea 
as the preceding ; how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways 
■past finding out ! The thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth verses illustrate 
the same particulars by way of interrogative negation, in language 
taken from the Old Testament. But the order is inverted. The 
first question, " Who hath known the mind of the Lord ?" refers to 
the knowledge; the second question, "Who hath been his counsellor?" 
applies to the wisdom ; and the third, " Who hath first given to him 
and it shall be recompensed to him again ?" enlarges upon the riches 
of God. The first two questions are taken from Isaiah ; the third 
from Job. 

The subject is first proposed thus : e ' O the depth of the riches, 
and the wisdom, and the knowledge of God !" which consists of three 
distinct sentences ; the riches of God are deep, the wisdom of God is 
deep, the knowledge of God is deep, combined into one forcible and 
grand proposition. The idea of depth thus attributed to the three 
perfections of God is then expanded, How inscrutable are his judg- 
ments, and untraceable his ways ! after which comes the epanodos 
taking up the three in the inverted order. l 

Rom. ix. 3. " For I could wish that myself were accursed from 
Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh," &c. 
The naked sentence here is, tjv^o/xtjv aurbs i<ya> avdds/xa slvai airb rod 
~Kpi<jTov, avTos iya> being the subject, rjv^o/jujv the copula, and dvd- 
6s/u,a slvai airb rov Xpiarov the predicate. I would that I were sepa- 
rated from the enjoyment of Christ for the sake of my brethren, $fc. 
1 See Jebb's Sacred Literature, pp. 119, 120. 

VOL. II. T 



274 Biblical Interpretation. 

It is arbitrary and unnatural to put the words in a parenthesis, and 
to translate the imperfect rjv^6/j,rjv as referring to the past period of 
Paul's life when he was still a Pharisee, i" ivislied to be accursed from 
Christ. In this case, virsp rcou aSsX^cov fiov is connected with rfj 
Kaphca fjiov in the second verse. 1 

Heb. v. 7, 8, 9. " Who, in the days of his flesh, when he had 
offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, 
unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in 
that he feared ; though he were a son, yet learned he obedience by 
the things which he suffered ; and being made perfect, he became 
the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." 

Two closely connected statements form the body of this long sen- 
tence, viz., Christ learned obedience ; and He became the author of 
eternal salvation. The former is modified by the following particu- 
lars : Christ learned obedience in the days of his flesh ; he learned 
obedience though he were a Son ; he learned obedience by the things 
which he suffered. The qualifying statement of the second general 
proposition is simple, he became the author of eternal salvation to all 
them that obey him. Accompanying the first qualifying statement 
appended to the first general proposition is a parenthetic clause, viz., 
when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying 
and tears, unto him that teas able to save him from death, and was 
heard in that he feared. 



CHAP. VIII. 

EXAMINATION OF THE PASSAGE ITSELF. 

After ascertaining the proper construction of a sentence or passage, 
we come to examine its meaning more minutely, so as to see the 
entire extent of it. 

It may have the means of elucidation within itself. Parallelism, 
contrast, antithesis, or some other peculiarity, may present the proper 
key to unlock the sense. Here parallelism of members is equally 
important, as in the case of single words or phrases ; for if it does 
not furnish precisely the true sense, it may at least remove obscurity, 
indicate the right meaning where various ones are admissible, or con- 
firm what was already probable. 

Psal. exxxix. 8, 9. "If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there : if 
I make my bed in hell, behold thou art there. If I take the wings 
of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea, even 
there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me." 

In these words the speaker means to express the idea, that in 
whatever direction he should go, in whatever place he should sojourn, 
God's presence would surround him. The words rendered, " dwell 
in the uttermost parts of the sea," are ambiguous. But the antithetic 
clause, take the wings of the morning, serves to elucidate them. 
1 Sec Tholuck's Ivommen'.ir, p. 477. et seqq. 



Examination of Context. 27 5 

" Should I flee eastward, as on the wings of the morning, or sojourn 
in the extreme parts of the west (here, as elsewhere, termed the sea), 
even there God would be present. The two quarters of the heavens, 
east and west, are denoted by the contrasted clauses, take the wings of 
the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea. The first 
direction spoken of is upward and downioard, ee ascend I to heaven ;" 
"make my bed in the underworld, or lie down in the grave." The 
sense of the passage is quite misapprehended by Hengstenberg, who 
supposes that in the eighth verse guilty flight from God is spoken of; 
and in the ninth, anxious flight from other enemies. 

John iii. 6. " That which is born of the flesh is flesh ; and that 
which is born of the Spirit is spirit." What is descended from man 
with his fleshly sinful nature is also carnal and sinful. In contrast 
with this, it is said, " That which is born of the Spirit is spirit ; " 
the subjects of the Spirit's regenerating power possess a spiritual na- 
ture. Two births are set over against one another. The Spirit is the 
author of the one, man is the instrumental cause of the other. The 
children born in the one are carnally minded, because those from 
whom they spring have a sinful nature ; the children born in the 
other are holy, because the Spirit who produces their nature is holy. 



CHAP. IX. 

EXAMINATION OF CONTEXT. 



The meaning of a sentence may be perceived from the context. It 
is unnecessary to divide the subject again into the immediate and 
remote context. Both run into one another, and cannot be separated 
by any palpable boundary. The following observations refer espe- 
cially to the latter, the former having been already illustrated at 
sufficient length in the case of terms and phrases. 

In considering the connection existing between the parts of a 
section and the amount of meaning they express, there is much need 
of critical sagacity. It may be easy to understand each word by 
itself, or each sentence individually, without proper comprehension 
of an entire argument. A capacity for verbal analysis does not 
presuppose or imply a like talent for exposition. Interpretation is 
not verbal philology, though it may include it. There are delicate 
distinctions of thought, links by which ideas are associated, se- 
quences and successions, transitions and intertwinings which are not 
easily detected or appreciated by many mnids. Some original ability 
as well as culture is necessary for their true apprehension. The 
idiosyncrasies of various writers, exhibited in their compositions, 
demand not only careful attention, but a philosophical spirit. To 
note the commencement of new topics, the propriety of their posi- 
tion, interruptions, digressions, pauses, nature of argumentation, 
and all the characteristic peculiarities of the sacred books, belongs 
to the business of an interpreter ; and how complicated it often is, 

T 2 



276 Biblical Interpretation. 

he best knows who is skilled in it. Acuteness, tact, learning, and 
logic are called into requisition. Sympathy with the spirit of the 
writer whose meaning is to be investigated, ability to place oneself 
in the circumstances he was placed in, and to set out with him from 
the same point of view, are among the things that put the expositor 
in a favourable position for understanding the proportions and parts 
of a connected discourse. 

The vicinity of a phrase or sentence should be enlarged till it be 
found that a different argument is introduced or a new topic pre- 
sented. 

Should a line of proofs or a series of illustrations be adduced in 
the treatment of a subject, each proof or illustration should be 
separated into a distinct section of itself. Let the divisions be as 
small as the nature of the case will allow. Here, however, it is 
not always easy to find a proper pause, or to detect the interlacings 
of kindred topics and the transitions which serve as bridges from 
one to another. The prophets, in particular, frequently pass from 
one theme to another so suddenly, as to present no definite or per- 
ceptible boundary between statements relating to different topics. 
Their declarations are often singularly intermingled and fused to- 
gether. The Epistles of Paul resemble in some respects the pro- 
phetical writings. The thoughts of the apostle flowed on in a con- 
tinuous stream, without formal intimation of the introduction of 
new arguments. More intent on matter than method, he disre- 
garded artificial distinctions. Not that either the prophet or the 
apostle of the Gentiles were confused or irregular, without coherence 
and consequence of thoughts ; but they were not educated in the 
schools of rhetoricians. They wrote in popular language for man- 
kind, not for an educated class only. Hence they should not be 
judged by formal rules. They were too full of their great themes 
to attend to technicalities, or to exhibit such partitions and pauses 
as study produces. Hence it is scarcely possible in some cases to 
divide their discourses into distinct sections without doing violence 
to the connection of the language. 

If these observations be correct, it will be evident that the nature 
of the connection in which a passage stands is a matter of primary 
importance. "Whether the clauses it consists of express genus or 
species, the whole or a part, cause or effect, antecedent or consequent, 
things similar or opposite, may be known by the vicinity. The 
ideas to which utterance is given depend for their elucidation upon 
the manner in which they are related to what precedes and follows 
their representation. In relation to this point, a knowledge of the 
laws of association will greatly facilitate interpretation; for the mode 
in which ideas were suggested to the writers will be found in har- 
mony with the natural operations of the human mind. Contiguity 
in time and place, contrast, causation, resemblance, regarded as the 
laws of association of ideas, must be taken into account. Nor should 
the succession of events be neglected, although the natural order 
is often departed from, both in the Old and New Testament books. 
The order observed by the prophets is not uniformly chronological. 



Examination of Context. 2 l 7 h I 

JN either is that presented in the Gospels. Our Lord uttered the 
same sentiments on different occasions. 

In studying the context, it is necessary to give minute attention 
to particles which connect the different clauses of a sentence or 
members of a paragraph together; to parentheses and digressions, 
which remove from the direct line of argument the portions con- 
tained in them ; to implied dialogue, in which objections and answers 
are indicated obscurely; to the nature of prophetic utterances, in 
which distant events are often brought together, though in reality 
widely separated; to the design of a writer as to the manner in 
which he wishes to compose his book or pursue his discourses, whether 
chronological or otherwise ; and to the degree of carefulness with 
which conclusions are deduced from premises, the premises them- 
selves stated, or to the fact that one or other is omitted. 

In relation to particles, too much attention cannot be given to 
them in studying the connection. Their office is to connect pre- 
dications. The suppositive, the causal, and the illative conjunctions, 
as they are termed by Mill in his Analysis of the Human Mind, 
mark joinings of various kinds. Not only do they throw light on the 
context, but they are themselves determined in part by the context 
and subject-matter. Noldius's work on the Hebrew particles is the 
most copious. But it wants pruning now, by the aid of Gesenius's 
and Ewald's Hebrew Grammars, as well as by the Lexicons of 
the former scholar. On the Greek particles Hartung, together with 
Winer's Grammatik, aided by the Lexicons of Bretschneider, Wahl, 
and Wilke, will render material assistance. 

Here 1, D3, *]*?, *9, W, \tW, »$, &X, and such like particles indi- 
cative of relation, should be observed. 

The first named \, usually translated and, is used in very various 
connections, and might often be rendered but. This conjunction has 
been employed by Stuart against Hitchcock to show that the second 
verse of the first chapter of Genesis cannot be separated from the 
first — that it is "an indication that the narration is simply con- 
tinued, and that the whole belongs to one and the same period." 1 
Such an idea is erroneous. The particle translated as but allows of 
any interval between the first and second verses of Genesis. 

In Isa. liii. 9. the same particle is adversative, for the words "with 
a rich (man) in his death" are not parallel to the preceding, " they 
appointed him his grave with the wicked," as if the sense of both 
clauses were the same. The introductory particle \ adduces a con- 
trast, or an adversative proposition : " But he was with a rich man 
in his death," viz. Joseph of Arimathea. 

In the same verse the particle *?y should not be rendered because, 
as if assigning a reason, but though, which alone agrees with the 
context. 

J2"^y is used to point out the cause of a preceding statement, and 
is rio-htly rendered therefore in Psal. i. 5. ; " therefore the ungodly 
shall not stand in the judgment," i. e. because they are unlike a living 

1 See American Bib. Repos. for 1836, p 60. 
t 3 



278 Biblical Interpretation. 

tree and like the useless chaff. JSTordheimer incorrectly understands 
it here in another sense, moreover. 

It has been said that then is emphatic in Malachi iii. 4., hut this is 
not correct. It is simply \, and. But TN, then*, is emphatic in Malachi 
iii. 16. 

jyo?, on account of, in order that, indicates design before a verb, 
as in Gen. xxvii. 25.; Exod. iv. 5. It is not used, as ISTordheimer 
affirms, to point out result without the idea of design. Hebrew 
teleology does not comport with that assumption. In the examples 
he gives from Jer. vii. 19., Hos. viii. 4., Amos ii. 7., design is 
latent, though the actors may not have been aware of it. 

In 1 Thess. iv. 17., sirstrd, translated then, marks succession. 
First the dead in Christ shall rise, and then the living will be 
changed. It is not said that the dead in Christ rise before the rest 
of the dead, but that they rise before the living are changed. 

The conjunction <ydp in the Pauline writings presents much diffi- 
culty in many places. Thus in Rom. v. 17. it is not easy to ascer- 
tain its exact use. It may be explicative, referring back the 
seventeenth verse to the fifteenth, the sixteenth being then paren- 
thetical. This view, which is that of Rothe, yields good sense. It 
may also be taken as giving a reason for the &Ltcala}fj,a, justification, 
of the sixteenth verse, justification having the adjunct idea of life, 
£&)?;. But even thus, the main idea of the fifteenth verse must have 
been in the apostle's mind. This latter is Tholuck's explanation of 
yap. In like manner ovv in the epistles of the same apostle is not 
always easy of exact explanation, as marking a peculiar connection. 

The context is peculiarly affected when the line of thought or 
argument is interrupted by parentheses and digressions. These will 
create some difficulty. After such interjected remarks, the sense or 
sentence proceeds as if no interruption had taken place. 

Exod. xii. 15. literally translated stands thus : " Seven days shall 
ye eat unleavened bread ; even the first day ye shall put away leaven 
out of your houses (for whosoever eateth leavened bread, that soul 
shall be cut off from Israel), from the first day until the seventh." 

2 Chron. xxxii. 9. " After this did Sennacherib king of Assyria 
send his servants to Jerusalem, (but he himself laid siege against 
Lachish, and all his power with him,) unto Hezekiah king of 
JudaV&c 

Isa. Iii. 14, 15. " As many were astonished at thee (his visage was 
so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons 
of men), so shall he sprinkle many nations." 

2 Cor. viii. 8, 9, 10. "I speak not by commandment but by 
occasion of the forwardness of others, and to prove the sincerity of 
your love. (For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, 
though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye 
through his poverty might be rich.) And herein I give my advice," &c. 

Heb. vi. 1, 2. " Not laying again the foundation of repentance 
from dead works, and of faith toward God (the doctrine of baptisms, 
and the laying on of hands), and the resurrection of the dead, and 
eternal judgment." Here the four great doctrines of the Gospel are 



Examination of Context. 279 

mentioned, repentance, faith, the resurrection of the dead, eternal 
judgment. The parenthetic clause is thrown in as explanatory of 
repentance from dead works and faith in Christ. The former was 
symbolised by the various baptisms under the Mosaic dispensation, 
pointing to the necessity of repentance ; while faith in God was signifi- 
cantly taught by the imposition of hands on the head of the sacri- 
ficial victim. These observances foreshadowed repentance and faith, 
which were clearly revealed under the new economy. 

Parentheses in the New Testament are often introduced by 'yap, 
for ; sometimes by on, that, as in 1 Cor. xvi. 5., 2 Thess. i. 10. 

False examples of them have been given from Romans i. 2., ii. 
13—15. ; 1 Cor. ii. 8. ; 2 Cor. i. 12. ' 

Digressions are longer than parentheses. They consist of de- 
partures from the line of argument pursued into subordinate or col- 
lateral particulars. They slide into or suggest another train of 
ideas ; whereas parentheses do no more than interrupt by a few 
words the construction of a sentence or the regularity of a passage. 
The writings of the Apostle Paul abound in them. He frequently 
digressed from one train of thought to another, carried away by the 
ardour of his feelings and the rapidity of his conceptions. A remark- 
able example of digression occurs in the Epistle to the Ephesians, 
where the train of thought in the first verse of the third chapter is 
broken off and not resumed till the fourteenth verse. Some have even 
thought that the entire chapter is parenthetic, as if ija> 6 Bsa/j,oos 
(iv. 1.) was a resumption of sjod HavXos 6 Sso-filos in iii. 1. But this 
is less probable. 

Heb. v. 10 — vii. The writer of the epistle having introduced the 
mention of Melchizedek, turns aside from the subject for the purpose 
of reproving the Hebrew Christians for the little advancement they had 
made in the divine life. At the commencement of the seventh 
chapter he resumes the topic of Messiah's priesthood as compared 
with that of Melchizedek. 

Zech. vii. 8 — viii. 18. The captives inquire whether they should 
continue to observe fast- days now that the temple is restored. The 
prophet however, instead of immediately answering the question, 
turns aside to speak of the causes which brought calamities on the 
people and the conduct Cod required of them in prosperity. A 
special answer is first given to the question at viii. 18. 

Sentiments are put into the mouths of different speakers, without 
formal mention of the parties; as in Isa. Iii. 13, 14, 15., Jehovah is 
the speaker; in liii. 1 — 10., the prophet; Hi. 11, 12., Jehovah. 

In Pom. iii. 3., the apostle adduces an objection; in the fourth 
verse he replies to it. In the fifth verse is another objection ; to 
which he replies in the three succeding verses. 

In this manner some have been disposed to treat various passages 
in the book of Ecclesiastes which express sentiments obnoxious to 
sound reason as well as Scripture, and are contradictory to other places. 
In discussing his theme, which is one of practical ethics, the writer is 

See Winer's Grammatik, § 64., fourth edition. 
t 4 



280 Biblical Interpretation. 

supposed to refer to the sentiments ot objectors, without express 
mention of the fact that they are the sentiments of others, not his 
own settled opinions. We do not think, however, that attention to 
this fact will satisfactorily elucidate the work ; or that without it 
the alleged sceptical views, uttered by the writer, will cause inextri- 
cable confusion to the interpreter, so that he will see no plan, unity, 
or consistency in the treatise. There is a better method of expound- 
ing iii. 18 — 20., ix. 5, 6., and other passages. 1 

In regard to responsive Psalms, of which xxiv. xv. xx. civ. are 
given as examples, we must be allowed to doubt the assumption of their 
being designed for alternate choirs of singers. The writer himself uses 
rhetorical interrogations, and answers them either in his own name, or 
sometimes in that of Jehovah, just as all animated writers do. 

We have already referred to the nature of prophetic utterances by 
means of which distant events are brought into juxtaposition. Even 
in plain historical narration we meet with the same phenomenon, as 
Exod. ii. 10, 11. ; Matt. ii. 23— iii. 1. 

In examining the context of a passage or the nature of the con- 
nection it stands in, whether it be loose or compact, interrupted or 
not, it is also of importance to observe the design of the writer, or the 
object he has in view. This has been technically called the special 
scope, that which was in the writer's mind to describe or demon- 
strate in the particular portion in question. Here it will be most 
convenient to speak of the entire subject of scope, as the special 
cannot be adequately treated without considering the general scope. 

It is reasonable to suppose that the sacred authors had some 
object in view. They had some design in writing. In prosecuting 
that design they followed a certain method. Whatever topics they 
were prompted to treat of, they adopted certain modes of inculcat- 
ing their sentiments. The object which each author proposed to 
himself in his work or book, is denominated the general scope. On 
the other hand, that particular design which he had in sections, 
paragraphs, or passages of his treatise, is called the special scope. 
Let us attend to both in order. 

The first question which arises respecting the general scope is, 
how it may be known. ' To this we answer first, from express 
mention by the writer himself. This is usually clone at the begin- 
ning or toward the end. It may even be intimated in other parts of 
the book, though somewhat obscurely. Thus the author of Eccle- 
siastes announces his theme at the beginning and end of his treatise : 
" Vanity of vanities, saith the preacher, vanity of vanities ; all is 
vanity," i. 2., and xii. 8. Hence the book is occupied with a dis- 
cussion tending to show that nothing worldly can furnish true and 
lasting happiness. At the commencement of Proverbs the object of 
the writer is also set forth : " The Proverbs of Solomon the son of 
David, king of Israel ; — to know wisdom and instruction ; to per- 
ceive the words of understanding ; to receive the instruction of wis- 
dom, justice, and judgment, and equity ; to give subtilty to the simple, 
to the young man knowledge and discretion." (i. 1 — 4.) 

1 See Stuart's Commentary on Ecclesiastes, New York, 1851. 



Examination of Scope. 281 

The Apostle John announces his object in writing the fourth 
Gospel towards its close : " But these are written that ye might 
believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing, 
ye might have life through his name." (xx. 31.) 

Luke states his design in writing his Gospel at the commencement 
of the Acts : " The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of 
all that Jesus began both to do and teach until the day in which he 
was taken up, after that he," &c, in connection with what he says 
at the commencement of the Gospel itself, (i. 1 — 4.) 

The beginning of the Apocalypse in like manner intimates what 
was the leading design of the writer, or of Jesus Christ by whom he 
was inspired: "The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto 
him, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to 
pass," i. 1.; and, " Write the things which thou hast seen, and the 
things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter, i. 19. An 
incorrect example of general scope or design is to affirm that the 
design of the Bible itself is told in Rom. xv. 4., and in 2 Tim. iii. 
16, 17.; for both passages refer merely to the Old Testament, not 
to the New. 

This rule is also applicable to the special scope, which is merely a 
subdivision of the general. In other words, a particular section or 
paragraph may be elucidated in the same manner. 

1 Cor. vii. Here the apostle replies to certain questions which 
had been proposed to him by the Corinthian converts. In the first 
verse he lays down the general proposition that it is good not to 
marry, which is illustrated and recommended in some of the subse- 
quent verses. But abstinence from the married state is not treated 
of in the entire chapter, collateral questions being also introduced. 
At the twenty-sixth verse, it is stated that this is good for the present 
distress, or on account of impending calamities. The apostle thought 
therefore that a single life was preferable in view of the sufferings 
then approaching to the Corinthians and others. He does not recom- 
mend a state of celibacy absolutely, nor does he say that matrimony was 
not in itself good ; but he merely intimates that it was not relatively 
good, or prudent in the circumstances of the Corinthian believers. 

In Rom. iii. 28 — 31., the apostle gives the conclusion to which 
his reasonings from i. 18., where he had announced his subject had 
brought him, viz., justification by faith alone. But yet in this com- 
pass various sections and subdivisions may be distinctly traced. Thus, 
i. 18 — iii. 20. and iii. 21 — 30. are paragraphs. The conclusions of 
such subordinate divisions are sometimes indicated by the conjunc- 
tion therefore. But let there be no implicit reliance on a single 
word, because neither therefore nor wherefore indicates the result of 
successive arguments in many instances. Compare Eph. iv. 17. 25. 

Many of the prophets announce the subject of separate predictions 
at the beginning of the section or paragraph which contains them. 
Thus, in Isa. xxiii. 1., the oracle concerning Tyre; in xxi. 11., the 
oracle concerning Dumah ; xxi. 13., the oracle against the Arabians. 

In Ezek. xix. 1. a lamentation for the princes of Israel commences, 
as there stated ; while the end of it is marked in the fourteenth verse 
of the chapter. 



282 Biblical Interpretation. 

Secondly, the scope may be ascertained from the known occasion 
which gave rise to a book or treatise. 

Thus there are titles or inscriptions to many Psalms indicating 
the occasions on which they were composed, or the historical circum- 
stances which gave rise to them. These inscriptions, however, should 
be used with caution, since they cannot be regarded as proceeding 
from the original writers themselves. They are of later date than 
the compositions they characterise, and are often incorrect besides. 
We cannot subscribe to the sentiment expressed by Alexander from 
Hengstenberg, that " in every case the inscription is in perfect 
keeping with the Psalm itself, as well as with the parallel history." l 
As there is no reason for doubting the correctness of the inscriptions 
prefixed to the 18th and 34th Psalms, showing the occasions on 
which they were written, the scope of the writer is illustrated by 
means of them. But the 51st and 90th can scarcely be regarded as 
having correct titles. Some have supposed that the Psalms headed 
" Songs of degrees," i. e. 120 — 134. were written for the Jews to be 
sung during their journeys to Jerusalem, and have tried to explain 
the meaning of occasional verses in them by this fact; but the 
opinion is now justly exploded by every good commentator, except 
Hengstenberg and his follower Alexander. In like manner, the 
predictions of the prophets become clearer when we know the his- 
torical circumstances among which they were uttered. Their general 
scope is indicated and affected by the occasions which gave rise to 
them. This applies especially to Ezekiel and Jeremiah, who were 
contemporaries, and whom it is impossible otherwise to understand. 

Several of the parables of Jesus originated from misapprehension 
on the part of his disciples. To correct their mistakes he employed 
this manner of address. Or, he defended his own conduct by a 
parable. The Apostle Paul, exposed to accusations from the Jews 
and Judaisers, wrote some of his Epistles or parts of Epistles to refute 
their calumnies, and to point out the dangerous errors which they 
inculcated in mixing up the observances of Judaism with the free 
grace pf the Gospel. The Epistle to the Galatians is of this nature. 

Thirdly, connected with the preceding and properly speaking in- 
cluded in it, is the rule which teaches that we should look to the 
persons addressed. He who writes an epistle or book to instruct or 
edify others, in the name of God, is influenced, at least in part, by 
the sentiments and character of the persons to whom he writes, as 
well as by the general circumstances in which they are placed. Thus 
various arguments employed by the Apostle Paul are mere argumenta 
ad homines. Of this nature is the allegorising illustration or argu- 
ment in Gal. iv. 22 — 31. So also the argumentation employed in the 
seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, from the beginning 
till the tenth verse. 

Fourthly, a knowledge of the time when a book or epistle was 
written may indicate the scope of an author in writing it. Thus a 
knowledge of the history of the times when the Old Testament pro- 
phets lived, is necessary to an acquaintance with the scope of their 
1 Commentary on the Psalms, vol. i. p. 21. 



Examination of Scope. 283 

books, as well as of detached passages in them. Some of the apostles 
wrote at a period when doctrinal errors began to be developed ; and 
therefore portions of their works were directed to the refutation of 
them. The time when the second Epistle to the Thessalonians was 
written, viz. 52 or 53 A. D., shows that Hammond's application of the 
Man of Sin and the wicked one to Simon Magus must be erroneous. 
It also proves that the Emperor Caligula was not the Man of Sin, as 
Grotius conjectured he was. 

Fifthly, where the general scope of a book is not apparent, we 
should peruse it again and again, carefully observing the successive 
details and comparing them as a whole. In this manner reflections 
of the same kind may reappear in the book at intervals, showing 
that some one prevailing sentiment pervaded the mind of the writer. 
That such recurring reflections are an index of the leading design is 
apparent from the fact that, when there is an announcement of the 
scope in addition, both coincide. General reflections interspersed 
through the Gospel of John, to the effect that he wrote to establish 
the faith of Christians in Jesus the Son of God (ii. 11. ; vi. 64. 71. ; 
vii. 30. &c), agree with what is plainly declared at the close (xx. 31.). 
In attending to such reflections, however, the interpreter should see 
that they be really interspersed through the entire book, and be of 
a nature to exhibit the leading design of the writer. Thus Schneck- 
enburger is wrong in supposing that the general scope of the Acts is 
apologetic. 

In books which present a degree of regularity, order, and depth 
of thought, the scope appears from the evidences of method, and the 
organisation of the whole. This is exemplified in the book of Job, 
and in the Epistles to the Romans and Hebrews. But in the case 
of such treatises as are simple and popular, it is more difficult to ap- 
prehend any general scope. The special scope also of particular 
sections and passages comes upon the reader irregularly and is often 
obscure. This holds good in poetical writings likewise. Here we 
must depend mainly on the details of the book itself, judging from 
them both when they are isolated or strange and when they are 
analogous or similar to one another. Thus the general scope of the 
book of Ruth lies in the concluding genealogy (iv. 17 — 22.). The 
Epistle of James appears irregular and loose in plan, without any 
definite object. But viewed in its successive parts, it discloses a 
leading design running through the whole and presented under a 
variety of forms, viz. the opposition between a living and profound 
religion which penetrates heart and conduct, and a religion external, 
superficial, consisting in intellectual notions and conceits. 

Sometimes the comparison of a book with other analogous ones 
assists in determining the scope. Thus when we put together Levit- 
icus and Deuteronomy, we see that the design of the one was eccle- 
siastical, that of the other hortatory and popular. A comparison of 
Kings and Chronicles shows the Levitical or sacerdotal design of the 
latter, the prophetic of the former. In this manner John's Gospel 
may be compared with the other three, whence its scope as announced 
at the close may be confirmed. 



284 Biblical Interpretation. 

The preceding observations apply to the general and special scope 
alike. 

In investigating scope, there is much danger of missing the 
right interpretation. It is never difficult to tell whether the im- 
mediate or special scope of a passage or the general scope of it is to 
be regarded; but sometimes several explanations appear to agree 
with a writer's design. This, however, can only be apparent. Nothing 
but one meaning can really agree with his design. Of course the 
context must always be taken along with the bearing of such scope 
on a particular passage. In doubtful or uncertain cases this must in 
a great measure decide, for no two interpretations can agree both 
with the scope and the general context. An example to show that 
the general scope of a book and the special scope of a passage both 
yield consistent and probable interpretations, between which it is diffi- 
cult to choose, has been given from the parable of the prodigal son in 
Luke xv. According to the general scope, the older and younger 
son represent the Jew and the Gentile ; but according to the special, 
the Pharisee and the sinner. There is little doubt that the Pharisees 
and publicans are aimed at in the parable, either directly or indi- 
rectly. The immediate scope is always more valuable and weighty 
than the general, for many passages may have a very remote bearing 
on the latter, or none that is perceptible ; while no one general design 
may pervade and unite all parts of a treatise. 

The general scope must not be relied upon for the interpretation of 
particular sections or passages. Nor can it be satisfactorily applied 
to remove such a contradiction as appears to exist between Paul and 
James, because the general design of these writers cannot be re- 
garded as one thing, admitting of no collateral discussions and followed 
out with uniform consistency. In the case of these writers a general 
design has been derived from two parts of their Epistles, which refer 
most explicitly to justification by faith and justification by works, as 
if the one meant to show that man is justified by faith alone, and 
the other that he cannot be justified by a faith which does not tend 
to holiness. Yet this latter is scarcely the general scope of James's 
Epistle. In the same manner we might show that the general scope of 
the Epistles to the Galatians and Romans is useless in resolving an 
apparent contradiction between Galat. iv. 10, 11., and Rom. xiv. 5. 
The context in either case is sufficient to show the writer's meaning. 
The apostle does not absolutely forbid or allow the observance of 
days. In Rom. xiv. 5. &c, he gives no decision, but lays the whole 
stress of the point on inward conviction. If that be conscientious 
and pure, he would not interfere. But when the Galatians observed 
days and months in a slavish, superstitious method, with self- 
righteousness of spirit, he blames them. Thus the spirit and motive 
with which such days are observed determine whether they are right 
or not in the sight of God. In themselves they are indifferent. The 
character of the persons too, Jewish or Gentile, makes no difference 
in itself. All this is shown not by the general scope but by the 
context of the passages. A parallel passage may also assist in 
the determination, for when it shows that another should be taken 



Examination of Scope. 285 

in a particular sense, that sense ought to be adopted, though the 
scope may appear to support a different sense. To show how 
necessary it is in some cases at least to take the entire context 
along with the scope into account when there is some uncertainty 
in deciding between two interpretations which appear equally to 
harmonise with the latter, let us look at the 42nd Psalm, in which 
the speaker exclaims, " When shall I come and appear before 
God?" This phrase, appear before God, or see the face of God, 
may mean, see his face in glory, enjoy a state of blessedness with 
God in heaven, as seeing God sometimes denotes. And such a sense 
would harmonise tolerably well with the scope and series of the 
composition. The writer wishes for death that he may the sooner 
enjoy the immediate presence of the divine Being. Oppressed and 
desponding, overwhelmed with the billows of adversity and sur- 
rounded with enemies, he looks forward to a better state with long- 
ing desire. The general scope of the Psalm cannot be discovered. 
Probably it was composed during the times of the Babylonian exile 
or later, for it does not belong to David. The writer in the fourth 
verse mentions the pleasure with Avhich he had accompanied the mul- 
titude to the house of God ; and this determines the sense of the 
second verse, in which, far from the holy land, he expresses his fervent 
desire of returning to Jerusalem and worshipping God in the temple. 

In Matt. v. 25. we read, " Agree with thine adversary quickly, 
whilst thou art in the way with him ; lest at any time the adver- 
sary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the 
officer, and thou be cast into prison." This passage has been inter- 
preted either literally or figuratively. According to the latter, it 
refers to reconciliation with God in view of future retribution. 
The adversary is God, the judge Christ, the officer death, the 
prison hell or purgatorial fire. According to the former, it refers to 
conduct in this life in relation to our fellow-men. The doctrine 
which inculcates the duty of being easily and quickly appeased is 
here enforced. In a civil lawsuit, it is best to compromise it ; for if 
the plaintiff prosecute it and the judge be severe the uttermost 
farthing will be exacted. Both senses seem to agree with the scope. 
But when the parallel passage in Luke is compared, we see that the 
present one has no reference to a future state nor to the punishment 
to be inflicted there. It refers to a suit in a court of justice : " When 
thou goest with thine adversary to the magistrate, as thou art in the 
way, give diligence that thou mayest be delivered from him, lest he 
hale thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and 
the officer cast thee into prison. I tell thee thou shalt not depart 
thence till thou hast paid the very last mite." Luke xii. 58, 59. 

Both the general and special scope have been abused. The 
former has been misapplied through forgetfulness or neglect of the 
latter. When a whole book from first to last has been reduced to 
one point of view whence the writer set out, and by which all was 
regulated, violence is done it. This rigorous unity is very rarely 
found. All parts have not invariably a strict connection with the 
general scope. Many are mere obiter dicta. They are quite foreign 



286 Biblical Interpretation. 

to it. The Biblical writers, like all ancient and popular authors, were 
not very methodical ; and to reduce every part of a discourse or 
writing emanating from them to one general design, as though it were 
logically related to it, is preposterous. The influence of the general 
scope, therefore, has often been exaggerated. This has been the 
case with respect to the prophets. Interpreters, misapprehending 
the nature of their style, the state of mind in which they saw their 
ecstatic visions and uttered their oracles, have reasoned most errone- 
ously in regard to them. As if the strains of Ezekiel or Hosea, 
clouded in mystery as they often are, should be digested like a code 
of laws or an algebraic treatise. 

Again, the special scope has been abused by such as suppose that 
it ought always to be direct or immediate, no interpretation being 
admissible except it be of a kind that could be readily apprehended 
by the writer's contemporaries. But it is injurious to the predictions 
of prophets and the teachings of Jesus Christ, to reduce them to a 
state in which they might be supposed to present a distinct, clear 
idea to such as listened. The discourses of the Saviour were intended 
for future ages, in which their full spiritual significance might be 
gradually evolved by the faith and hope of believers. They were 
dark to those before whom they were first uttered. After his resur- 
rection and the gift of the Spirit they began to be apprehended. The 
Biblical books, though addressed to certain readers at the first, were 
intended for all mankind. They contain many things which, faintly 
apprehended at first, will be better understood in proportion as the 
spiritual experience of humanity is developed. 

In the case of the general scope, it will be desirable to interpret 
many things here and there, not by their connection with it, but by 
the subject treated of in the place where they occur. And in the 
case of the special scope, we must not limit the exposition of parti- 
cular sections and passages by what the first readers or hearers 
thought, but regard wider and more general considerations, while we 
look at the commencement and close for indications of a topic com- 
plete in itself, though subserving it may be a general purpose, or 
forming an independent link in the chain of an argument. The 
general scope assists in ascertaining the special; and the special 
scope of a place may also elucidate the general. 1 

In treating of the special scope which could not well be separated 
from the general scope, we have been examining the subject of con- 
text, for the whole design of a passage lies in the context interpreted 
by the ordinary rules used for discovering the usus loquendi. In 
applying the scope of a passage to the interpretation of it, we apply 
the context. 

It must also be observed, whether the premises and conclusions 
of arguments be stated or suppressed; and whether an objection to 
which an answer is given be merely implied. From any such sup- 
pression difficulty arises. 

In Rom. v. 12. the words, " As by one man sin entered into the world 
and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men," &c, form the 
1 See Cellerier's Hcrmeneutique, § 104. p. 84. et segq. 






Examination of Context. 287 

first member of a parallel or comparison instituted between the salva- 
tion proceeding from Christ and the misery proceeding from Adam. 
But we look in vain for the corresponding member. It is suppressed. 
It is left for the readers, to be supplied from the one enunciated, 
which can be readily done by the aid of the succeeding verses down 
to the eighteenth. We do not agree with the interpreters who find 
the corresponding member of comparison in " who is the figure of 
him that was to come," ver. 14. Our English translators, who ap- 
pear to have placed it in the eighteenth verse, enclosing 13 — 17. in a 
parenthesis after Grotius, Wet-stein, Reiche, and Flatt, certainly err. 

In Gal. iii. 20., " Now a mediator is not of one, but God is one," 
the conclusion is left to be drawn. Since a mediator presupposes 
two parties, and God is eternal unity, the promise made to Abraham 
is dependent on God alone. Both promise and fulfilment are alike 
his free gift. It is therefore above the law in which the separation 
between two parties requires a mediator, and the fulfilment is 
dependent on the Jewish people as one of them. The promise differs 
from the law, being thus a superior arrangement to it. It belongs 
absolutely to the eternal one. 1 

In Heb. iii. 4., f( For every house is builded by some one, but he 
that built all things is God," some think that the conclusion is sup- 
pressed, others the minor premise. The former is the opinion of 
Piscator, Cramer, and Stuart. " He who founded the house of God 
is God ; but Christ founded the house of God ; therefore Christ is 
God, and consequently greater than Moses." So Piscator draws out 
the argument. But we are persuaded that this interpretation is 
incorrect. That given by Bleek is the best. 

In using the context, it will be found that the evidence of a cer- 
tain interpretation deducible from it does not often amount to 
certainty. A degree of probability is all that can be reached by it. 
It is a very valuable aid, but it is not always decisive in its testi- 
mony. The following examples may suffice to show the legitimate 
application of it. 

Psal. cxviii. 24. (C This is the day the Lord hath made ; we will 
rejoice and be glad in it." Here what is meant by the day can only 
be gathered from the context. We look back to the twenty-third 
verse, further still to the verses (15 — 18.) where the people are 
described as entering the sanctuary to give thanks, and still further 
to what precedes (5 — 14.), where it appears that Jehovah has 
delivered Israel from great distress, and so proved himself worthy of 
confidence. Accordingly the expression in question must denote 
the prosperous time which Israel teas now permitted to enjoy through 
the divine favour. Jehovah made the day, as being the author of the 
happy change in the circumstances of the people. There is no allu- 
sion to the weekly sabbath, ^« has been often assumed. 

In 1 Kings xxii. 15. Micaiah says to the king of Israel, " Go and 
prosper, for the Lord shall deliver it into the hand of the king." 
This flattering promise seems strange at first sight, and appears to 

1 See De "Wette's Exeget. Handtuch. 



288 Biblical Interpretation. 

contradict what is related elsewhere. But it was made ironically, as 
the next verse shows. Ahab himself regarded it as such. 

In John v. 39., it is well known that the verb search, spsvvdrs, 
may be either imperative or indicative, search the scriptures, or ye 
search the scriptures. The context shows that the former sense is the 
more probable, because our Lord reproaches his hearers with their 
unbelief and their reluctance to acknowledge his claims. 

Again, in Titus i. 15., " All things are pure to the pure," can 
only be explained from the context. It must be taken relatively not 
absolutely. Where the conscience is pure, human ordinances, whether 
they relate to the use of food or to the relations of life, do not defile 
the man. If his conscience be clean in the use of life's enjoyments, 
he may freely partake of them. 

In Luke xxi. 15., we read, "For I will give you a mouth and 
wisdom, which all your adversaries shall not be able to gainsay nor 
resist." To whom does the Saviour here refer ? The context shows 
that his disciples are the persons. Persecutions threatened them ; 
and he fortifies them beforehand for suffering. 

In relation to particles, those of similitude are frequently want- 
ing, as in Psal. xi. 1., xii. 6. They are easily supplied ; and are 
properly so for the most part, in the authorised English version. 

In Isa. lii. 14, 15., we read, " As many were astonished at thee ; 
his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more 
than the sons of men : so shall he sprinkle many nations," &c. 
Here "i|'^5, as, has |3, so, for its correlative, the intermediate words 
being parenthetical. The antithesis is between " many being 
astonished at him," and, " his sprinkling many nations." 

In Titus iii. 8., we read, " This is a faithful saying, and these 
things I will that -thou affirm constantly, that they which have 
believed in God might be careful to maintain good works." The 
conjunction iva prefixed to the verb fypovTiQuai signifies in order 
that. Titus was enjoined by the apostle Paul to inculcate certain 
doctrines, that by means of them his hearers might maintain good 
works. There is an inseparable connection between the reception 
of these doctrines and . the practice of good works. The latter 
cannot be without the former. The necessary result of evangelical 
truth believed is holy conduct. 

The following examples refer to context generally. Isa. i. 5. 6., 
" Why should ye be stricken any more ? ye will revolt more and 
more: the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. From the 
sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it ; but 
wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores: they have not been 
closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment." This 
figurative descripton borrowed from a wounded body denotes the 
utter desolation of the state. The words of the seventh and eighth 
verses that follow show this, for there the desolation is literally de- 
scribed. Hence it is unwarrantable to refer the terms in question to 
the state of sinful humanity. To use them in that manner is neither 
right nor scriptural. 

Zech. iii. 3. " Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and 



Examination of Context. 289 

stood before the angel." The next verse seems to intimate that the 
garments denote sins, for they are represented as forgiven. 

Zech. xiv. 1, 2. " Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, and thy 
spoil shall be divided in the midst of thee. For I will gather all 
nations against Jerusalem to battle ; and the city shall be taken, and 
the houses rifled, and the women ravished ; and half of the city shall 
go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut 
oiF from the city." These two verses leave it doubtful whether the 
description is literal or figurative. But the third and fourth verses 
show that the whole is highly figurative. " Then shall the -Lord go 
forth and fight against those nations, as when he fought in the day 
of battle. And his feet shall stand in that day upon the mount of 
Olives which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount of 
Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward 
the west," &c. &c. The feet of Jehovah fighting against the enemies 
of his people denotes, that his power shall be conspicuously mani- 
fested. 

Jer. xxxi. 3. " I have loved thee with an everlasting love ; there- 
fore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee." The context shows 
that these words refer to Israel, or the deliverance of the ten tribes. 
God assures them of protection on account of the love he bore them 
in ancient times. In days of old he had shown his love to them, as 
in the deliverance from Egypt; hence they might learn that he 
would not forsake them again for ever. The passage has no reference 
to the eternity of the divine purposes in the conversion of the elect. 
It should not have been drawn into the domain of dogmatic theology 
on the Calvinistic side, for it has nothing to do with God's eternal 
decrees, as a literal translation would plainly show. 

The 110th Psahn describes the victorious progress of a great king 
highly honoured of God and exalted to his right hand. The first 
three verses might probably be applied to David, as the language is 
highly figurative. But the fourth verse especially shows that David 
is not meant, but a greater than he. " The Lord hath sworn and 
will not repent. Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Mel- 
chizedek." David was not a priest. Messiah alone was king and 
priest at the same time. Hence the entire Psalm is directly and 
properly Messianic, which cannot be said of the 16th or 22nd, or 
some others usually classed with these two. 

Matt. xxii. 14. " Many are called, but few are chosen." The con- 
text of this difficult passage in its widest sense should be consulted. 
Christ does not speak in it of sovereign election, as many have sup- 
posed, but rather of the general invitation to the gospel feast, and 
the comparatively few who are admitted to the privilege of partici- 
pation, because they neglect the necessary qualifications. 

In interpreting the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, 
verses 1 — 24., it is very important not only to consider the whole 
section in its connected form, but to look at the context. Indeed 
the inherent difficulties cannot be resolved without the context. 
Whoever tries to explain the chapter by itself, without special re- 
gard to what precedes and follows, will probably mistake the true 

VOL. II. U 



290 Biblical Interpretation. 

sense of it. For example, what is stated at chap. v. 20., vi. 14 — 23., 
before; and again, vii. 25., viii. 1 — 8. after, must be carefully in- 
spected. In the latter portion there are antitheses to parts of the 
seventh chapter, which indicate the view to be taken of the other. 
Thus viii. 1. should be compared with vii. 6. Compare too vii. 25. 
with verse 24., viii. 2. with vii. 23., viii. 4. with vii. 14. 18., and viii. 
8. with vii. 5. An attentive and minute examination of these points 
together, will be the surest guide to the right meaning of the 
apostle in a passage so much discussed as the present and, it must 
be confessed, so embarrassed with difficulties. It is well known that 
there are three leading views which have been taken of the chapter 
in question. The preceding, and especially the succeeding context 
in the commencing verses of the eighth chapter, appear to us to dis- 
prove the opinion so elaborately advocated by Fraser, viz. that the 
conflict between flesh and spirit belongs to a believer who has at- 
tained to life in Christ. 1 

Rom. ix. 14 — 21. form a connected paragraph. But some expo- 
sitors have overlooked the immediate connection subsisting between 
the verses, especially between verses 16. and 17. with 18., in conse- 
quence of which they have resorted to a harsh sense of the verb 
translated, I have raised thee up. The three verses are closely joined; 
and verse 18. throws s]3ecial light on 14 — 17., for it brings together 
and deduces the general result that flows from them. Two opposite 
examples are given for the purpose of illustrating the divine pro- 
cedure, viz. Moses and Pharaoh. From these the general conclusion 
is drawn that God shows mercy, without room for the admission of 
any claim on the ground of human volition and effort ; while on the 
other hand, he hardens such as oppose him, using them as instru- 
ments in the accomplishment of his purposes. Men may dispute 
about what is meant by God's hardening the heart, bringing their 
metaphysics to bear upon it from opposite points of view ; they may 
refer it to an internal act or operation of God on the mind, or to 
the arrangement of external circumstances which will unavoidably 
produce obstinacy against what is right in states of mind already 
predisposed to rebellion; but the apostle's language is direct, He 
shows mercy and He hardeneth? Paul never attempts to reconcile 
the great problem implied in this language; why then should we 
rashly plunge into the abyss ? Both are true : God purposes, and 
he influences the minds of men according to his purposes; man is 
individually responsible. 

Sometimes the remote context is associated with a verse or pas- 
sage, when the immediate one ought to be taken. This is ex- 
emplified by such as join Bom. ii. 16. with verse 12., taking the 
intermediate verses parenthetically; as well as by those who join 
it to the 13th verse. In the former case, in the day is attached 
to the verb shall be judged, sv rj/xspa with Kpidrjcrovrai ; in the latter, 
it belongs to shall be justified, Si/caiooOrjcrovTai,. But both are objection- 
able, as interrupting the connected train of thought in 12 — 14. In 

1 Comp. Tholuck's Kommentar, p. 347. et seqq. 

2 Ibid. p. 509. et seqq. 



Examination of Context. 291 

the day belongs to verse 16., and should be attached to the phrase 
token he shall judge, ots tcpivsc. 1 

An improper example of explanation by context, whether imme- 
diate or remote, shall be given in the words of the writer himself 
who adduces it. " Let us bring to the contextual touchstone another 
passage — the well-known paragraph in Rom. v., which seems to 
assert a direct causal connection between Adam and his posterity." 
u By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so 
death passed upon all men, for all have sinned." " By one man's 
offence death reigned by one." " By the offence of one judgment 
came upon all to condemnation." " By one man's disobedience many 
were made sinners." Pelagians affirm that all intended by these 
remarkable statements is, that Adam gave the first example of sin- 
ning, and that somehow his posterity walked in his steps. They 
compare the phraseology with expressions like these : " By Sir 
Robert "Walpole, bribery and corruption entered the British Parlia- 
ment ;" " By Lysander luxury entered Sparta ;" which, according 
to them, only mean that the evils mentioned began with these per- 
sons. Without dwelling on the violence done to the words by this 
gloss, or the fact that their own phrases clearly denote not only a 
chronological but a causal connection, let the student look at the 
whole series of discourse that follows ; in which the apostle, with an 
emphasis and accumulation of synonymous expressions which show 
how intently his mind was working with the thought, draws a 
parallel between Adam and the Redeemer. If he does not mean to 
say that there was a similitude between them in official character 
and relations, almost perfect, there is no meaning in language. The 
inference is irresistible. Christ was not the first who received salva- 
tion, but is the immediate author of it. In the same sense our guilty 
progenitor is the immediate author of sin and misery to our world." 2 

As far as we are able to judge, no light is thrown upon the section 
Rom. v. 12 — 21. by the remote context. Nor is the nature of the 
connection between Adam and his posterity shown by the immediate 
context. A parallel is drawn between Adam and Christ at the head 
of humanity viewed in different aspects, but it is not intended to 
assert that the kind of connection in both cases is just the same. All 
that can be rightly adduced from the parallel is, that there is a general 
likeness — that as sin came by the one, the free gift came by the 
other; but the precise connection is not indicated, nor should it be 
transferred from the one to the other, provided it be more intelligible 
in one case. If the parallel be rigidly carried out, it will teach 
universal restoration, and indeed it has been maintained that such 
doctrine is really asserted in it. All that we wish to show by allusion 
to it is, that " the contextual touchstone" does not in the least illus- 
trate any thing in it. Its difficulties cannot be resolved by the 
application of this remedy. It should not be drawn into the contro- 
versy between Calvinists and Pelagians, for it furnishes little assist- 
ance to either party when rightly understood. 

1 See De Wette's Exeg. Handbucb, ii. 1. ad. vers. 

2 M'Clelland's Manual of Sacred Interpretation, pp. 45, 46. 



292 Biblical Interpretation. 

Another example of contextual explanation, which appears to us 
no example at all, has been given from 1 Peter, ii. 8. " Some ex- 
positors," it is said, " have explained 1 Peter, ii. 8. as meaning that 
certain persons were absolutely appointed to destruction; a notion 
not only contradicting the whole tenor of Scripture, but also re- 
pugnant to every idea which we are there taught to entertain of the 
mercy and justice of God. An attentive consideration of the context 
and of the proper punctuation of the passage alluded to would have 
prevented them from giving so repulsive an interpretation." We 
are unable to perceive how the proposed punctuation and the con- 
text throw light on the expression " to which also they were ap- 
pointed," in the way of removing from it the doctrine of predesti- 
nation to destruction. According to the new punctuation, which 
is a decided improvement on the old, the text runs thus : " They 
stumble, disbelieving the word, to which also they were appointed." 
They were not appointed to be disobedient, it is argued, but to the 
punishment of disobedience. The phrase to which they were appointed 
(of God) must refer either to the verb to be disobedient or to the 
verb stumble understood as implying punishment, or perhaps to 
both. The adducer of this contextual example would refer it to 
the second. " They were appointed to stumble against the word, 
but not to be disobedient," says Macknight. But we should refer 
the phrase to both, to the disobedience and to the punishment. Those 
who are acquainted with the Pauline theology know that the idea 
so conveyed is a biblical one ; and it is useless to attempt softening- 
it down. In the ninth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, at the 
twenty-first and following verses, there is the same doctrine. There 
is an intimate connection between the idea of appointment to de- 
struction as disobedient, and appointment to destruction as the 
punishment of disobedience. In ordaining men to the punishment 
of disobedience, God ordains them to disobedience. What he does, 
he wills to do. We need not perplex ourselves with the consistency 
of all this with human responsibility. The apostle asserts both. So 
do we. Both must be true. Why such morbid shrinking from 
affirming what Paul unhesitatingly declared ? The entire example 
as relating to the explanation of a passage by its context is nugatory. 

Psal. lxxx. 17. " Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right 
hand, the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself." Here 
it is evident from the parallelism of members that man of thy right 
hand is equivalent to son of man. The meaning of the whole verse 
is not obscure in the light of the context. It is illustrated by what 
is said of the vine in the fourteenth and fifteenth verses, as well as 
by the eighteenth verse. Indeed it is meant for an illustration of the 
figurative description given in the preceding context. The man of thy 
right hand is the same as the vine, i. e. the people of Israel ; and the 
sense of the whole verse is, "be favourable to thy people whom thou 
didst nourish and make to grow into a strong nation for thine own 
honour and praise." This is confirmed by that which immediately 
succeeds, so icill not we go bach from thee. It is therefore by no means 
doubtful, as Alexander imagines, whether the petition, let thy hand be 



Examination of Context. 293 

upon him, means in favour or in wrath. Nor can both senses be ap- 
plied at once, as the same commentator assumes, referring the words 
most arbitrarily to the Messiah, with whom they have not the 
slightest connection. 

Psal. xvii. 15. " As for me, I will behold thy face in righteous- 
ness : I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with thy likeness." The 
meaning of this verse may be seen from the context, not to be that 
the Psalmist refers to future blessedness after the resurrection. For 
in the whole Psalm his petitions refer to present aid and temporal 
deliverance. " Show thy marvellous loving-kindness," &c. " Deliver 
my soul from the wicked, from men which are thy hand, O Lord," 
&c. Had he expected and confidently looked for a blessed resur- 
rection, he would not have presented such petitions. The confident 
anticipation of that felicity had rendered unnecessary requests such 
as those in the second, seventh, eighth, ninth, thirteenth, and four- 
teenth verses. 1 

John iii. 3. " Except a man be born again, he cannot see the 
kingdom of God." The nature of the change intended in these 
words of our Saviour is elucidated in the context, especially the fifth 
verse, " Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot 
enter into the kingdom of God." The change was one of a spiritual 
kind. It was purifying and renewing, as indicated by the expressions 
water and the Spirit, the one the Old Testament term, and the other 
the New, but both referring to renovation of heart. What was de- 
signated by the washing with water under the Jewish dispensation was 
described as a change effected by the Spirit in the new dispensation. 
It is entirely contrary to the context, and indeed to the whole dis- 
course of the Saviour with Nicodernus to say, with Bishop Terrot, 
that the phrase horn again is here employed in the technical sense ot 
Jewish theology, or as a familiar trope expressive of the change 
which took place in a proselyte from heathenism to Judaism. 2 In 
that case Nicodemus, who supposed our Lord to speak literally, 
would not have wondered at his language, nor indeed would he have 
understood his words literally. We disapprove of Bretschn eider's 
rule which has been applied to this text by Terrot, " Every text 
must be interpreted in that sense in which it may be shown by his- 
torical proofs that the original hearers or readers could and must 
have understood it. 3 That there is some truth in the rule is unques- 
tionable ; but that it requires considerable limitation, and is here 
expressed far too strongly and unguardedly, is apparent to every 
sound interpreter. 

Matt, xviii. 17. " If a man neglect to hear the church, let him be 
unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." Here the context shows 
that the Saviour is speaking of private offences or injuries. " If thy 
brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between 
thee and him alone : if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy bro- 
ther. But if he will not hear, take with thee one or two more, that 
in the mouth of one or two witnesses every word may be established. 
1 See Hengstenberg's Commentar, vol. i. p. 371. 

$ See Terrot's translation of Ernesti's Institutio Interpretis, vol. i. pp. 50. 136. 
3 Historisch-dogmatische Auslegung, p. 209. 
u 3 



294 Biblical Interpretation. 

And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church." 15, 16 
verses. " If a man have injured you, first admonish him privately of 
it." If that prove unavailing, tell the church, that particular congre- 
gation of worshippers to which both you and he belong. And if he 
will not amend after the church's exhortation, but refuse to obey, 
have no more religious fellowship with him, but regard him as one 
without — destitute of the privileges and debarred from the blessings 
that belong to the faithful. 

One should have thought that this text was sufficiently plain. 
Yet it has been grievously misinterpreted and abused. The church 
has been expounded of the Catholic Church, which again has been 
identified with that outward ecclesiastical organisation called the 
Roman Catholic Church. Even then the expression has been limited 
to "the prelates and chief pastors," as if they alone had jurisdiction 
to bind and loose offenders, by their decisions, when met together in 
councils and synods. All this is totally irrelevant to the text, as 
the preceding context clearly determines. 

1 Cor. ii. 9. " But, as it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear 
heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which 
God hath prepared for them that love him." 

These words are often referred to the felicity and glory of the 
heavenly state, which are not yet fully revealed, and are moreover 
incomprehensible and unutterable by the children of God on earth. 
But the context proves that this sense is erroneously attributed to 
them. In the sixth verse it is written, " We speak the wisdom of 
God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom ;" and in the tenth, it is 
predicated of these very things, which eye hath not seen, nor ear 
heard, that " God has revealed them to us by his Spirit." The 
apostle therefore refers to things which, having been formerly con- 
cealed from the faithful, were revealed to himself and his fellow- 
apostles. Hence they consist of, or include, those elevated doctrines 
of Christianity which are suited to the apprehension of advanced 
believers — such views of God and salvation as are unfolded especially 
in the Epistle to the Romans, and in those addressed to the Ephe- 
sians and Colossians. Among these are justification, the representa- 
tive character of Adam and Christ, predestination, the nature of 
Christ's person, and such intimations regarding the scheme of re- 
demption, in its extent and results, as are given in^the former parts 
of the two Epistles written to the believers at Ephesus and Colosse. 

However valuable and important in the work of interpretation the 
context is, care must be taken not to assign an undue power to it. 
Many use it imperiously where it does not sanction their demands 
upon it. No more determining value should be attributed to it than 
what it fairly possesses. 

We look upon the way in which some have employed the words 
in the Epistle to the Hebrews vi. 9. as an abuse of context : " But, 
beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that ac- 
company salvation, though we thus speak." This language has been 
brought to bear upon the preceding description (ver. 4 — 6) so as to 
speak in favour of a certain view of it, viz., that which refers it to 



Examination of Context. 295 

persons unregenerate still, though partially awakened, convinced, 
and enlightened. But this is an illogical conclusion. It does not 
follow legitimately from the ninth verse, that the characters pour- 
trayed in the fourth, fifth, and sixth, had not attained to true spiritual 
life. The force of the latter passage cannot be set aside or modified 
in this manner. On the contrary, every unprejudiced reader recog- 
nises in the description, " it is impossible for thc^e who were once 
enlightened," &c, persons truly enlightened and converted by the 
Holy Ghost. The language is strong, clear, decisive. Hence it 
cannot be overridden by context, even if that context were appa- 
rently more favourable than it is to the restricting view which some 
take of the remarkable passage in question. Some theologians are 
singularly blind. They will not take a comprehensive -view, but look 
only at one side of a subject. The passage before us should be 
viewed both objectively and subjectively ; or in other words, persons 
are delineated objectively according to the gracious blessings they 
had experienced, but at the same time as not fulfilling the subjective 
conditions required, and therefore falling away in the end. Having 
been introduced into a state of grace, they do not continue in it, 
becoming unfaithful to the requirements demanded of those so si- 
tuated, and ceasing to fulfil the conditions necessary to their abiding 
steadfast. 

Another example of the abuse of context may be found in the 
application which some make of Heb. ii. 10. In the ninth verse it 
is written that Jesus, by the grace of God, tasted death for every 
man. No phrase could be more comprehensive than this for man- 
kind without exception. But because the context speaks of God 
bringing many sons unto glory through Christ, it has been inferred 
that Christ died merely to save such as become sons — that his death 
was intended to open up the way of salvation to no more than a part 
of the human race. This is totally incorrect. There is no ground 
for taking a restriction out of the tenth verse and putting it into the 
ninth. The unequivocal meaning of the words of the latter rejects it. 

Psal. vii. 8. " Judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness ; 
and according to mine integrity that is in me." This language has 
been unduly restricted and modified by the context. It has been 
referred to the speaker's innocency in reference to the charge of 
Cush the Benjamite. But this is incorrect ; first, because the Psalm 
is later than David ; secondly, because though it even belonged to 
lihn, Cush a Benjamite no where appears in history ; and thirdly, 
because it is arbitrary to explain Cush either of Shimei or of Saul. 
The title is here incorrect. Hence any restriction of the sense of 
the eighth verse founded on the title must be rejected. Equally 
arbitrary is it to qualify and explain the verse, with Alexander, by 
the confession of unworthiness in the sixth Psalm. For in the first 
place, it can neither be proved nor made probable that the writer of 
the sixth is identical with the author of the seventh. Hence the 
assumption that the two views which the Psalmist takes of himself, 
in the two Psalms, should be suffered to interpret one another, is 
gratuitous. In the second place, righteousness and integrity, according 



296 Biblical Interpretation. 

to which the speaker prays to be judged of God, though they cannot 
of course mean absolute perfection and innocence, presuppose ideas 
of moral rectitude on his part which could only arise from an im- 
perfect apprehension of the divine holiness and the divine law. 
When one expects acquittal or justification on the ground of his 
innocence, he has not proper notions of the extent to which he 
needs God's sovereign mercy. This can be learnt only under the 
gospel dispensation. 

The context in the Epistle to Rom. vii. 25., and viii. 1. has been 
employed to show that the passage preceding, viz., vii. 7 — 25., de- 
scribes the experience of the regenerate and sanctified, both of Paul 
himself and all holy Christians. So Fraser paraphrases the twenty- 
fifth verse, " The conclusion of the whole is : With my mind, that 
good and most prevailing law, which divine grace hath put in my 
mind and heart, I my very self do (if imperfectly, yet) truly and 
sincerely serve the law of God ; though, alas, with the flesh," &c. ; 
and in viii. 1., the same writer observes, " if from the fourteenth 
verse of the preceding chapter, the case of a person is represented 
who walked not after the flesh but after the Spirit, which is the truth 
of the matter, then the comfortable inference and description in this 
text are very properly introduced." 1 Here the mere force of one 
phrase, " serve the law of God," and of one particle, " therefore," 
is used and urged most unwarrantably. " Therefore," in viii. 1., as 
appears from the next verse, is intended to exhibit a contrast to 
vii. 25. Instead of being favourable to the view which regards the 
eighth chapter as descriptive of persons in the same state as the 
seventh, it is employed by the apostle for the purpose of marking a 
decided difference between the description with which the eighth 
chapter begins and the last two verses of the seventh. And if with 
the last two verses, the contrast extends to the entire passage from 
vii. 7., it cannot be shown, nor made in any degree probable, that 
vii. 7 — 25. delineates the condition of the apostle and of all sancti- 
fied ones. It is intended to exhibit, out of Paul's own experience, 
the feelings and condition of an Israelite struggling sincerely and 
earnestly to obey the law of God — of one in whom the irvsv/iia 
Xpio-Tov does not dwell. Any part of the context brought to bear 
against this view is impotent. 2 



CHAP. X. 

PARALLELS. 

Parallel passages only should be properly denominated real 
parallels. Those which are employed simply to ascertain the usus 
loquendi might all be termed verbal parallels. This would in some 
measure simplify the task of a writer on Hermeneutics, though it be 

1 See Eraser's Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification, pp. 317, 318., ed. Edinburgh, 1813. 

2 See the commentaries of Tholuck and De Wette on Rom. vii. 



Parallels. 297 

in opposition to established usage. But nice distinctions cannot be 
carried out, because the rules and principles of Hermeneutics run 
into and intersect one another. It is impossible to keep them rigidly 
apart. Verbal parallels are therefore in one sense real parallels and 
vice versa. If therefore there has been any deficiency in our pre- 
vious exhibition of parallels in connection with the usus loquendi of 
the Bible, we wish the reader to supplement it from the present 
section. He may easily carry back from this to a former place what- 
ever may throw additional light upon the usus loquendi, or complete 
its development. 

The comparison of real parallels, or parallels consisting in ideas, 
is based on the fact of a substantial and continued unity in the 
Biblical teachings. We expect parallel ideas in the Scriptures, be- 
cause the Scriptures reveal the same truths, and inculcate the same 
doctrines. But there are certain limitations which should be taken 
into account by the interpreter who employs this principle of com- 
parison. True parallelism of ideas belongs to the Biblical teaching- 
only so far as it relates to fundamental truths. It applies to the 
essentials of religion alone ; for in relation to the remainder, there is 
constant variation. All that part of the Bible which does not pertain 
to the essential truths of revelation presents diversities. In the Old 
Testament, the teachings are elementary and incomplete, presented 
in modes suited to an imperfect human apprehension. There the 
human element is considerable, because the ideas meant to be con- 
veyed had to encounter minds unable to rise to the higher aspects of 
the divine. In the New Testament, the revelation begun in the 
Old is completed in a manner adapted to the highest human intel- 
ligence, and therefore in the diviner aspects of it. Yet even in the 
latter, much more in the former, there appears the impress of indi- 
viduality which must belong to a revelation addressed to men 
through the instrumentality of other men like themselves. Hence it 
is easy to see that there cannot be a complete and entire unity between 
the two Testaments. In the Old Testament itself, this complete 
unity does not exist. There is a gradual development of doctrines 
and ideas. The prophets unfold more precisely the divine ideas with 
which they were entrusted, the nearer they approach the advent of 
Messiah. How different are the sentiments of David, for example, 
from those propounded by Isaiah. And in the New Testament too, 
though the writings contained in it are separated so little in time 
from one another, there is a gradation. The teachings of Christ 
differ from those of the apostles. The character of the former is 
comprehensive, wide, eternal, informal. Great truths are enunciated 
without the least approach to systematic classification. But in the 
apostolic writings, these are given in details and particulars. They 
are applied specifically. The individuality of the writers, the nature 
of the circumstances and influences in which they happened to be, 
and other things which will readily occur to the mind, give rise to 
a partial and unequal development of the same general truths. It 
is vain, therefore, to look for statements exactly alike in all parts of 
the sacred Scriptures. The details will necessarily differ. It cannot 



298 Biblical Interpretation. 

be expected that books separated by many centuries should exhibit 
the very same ideas where they treat of the same subject. Who- 
ever believes that parallels consisting in ideas must be entirely 
similar, is certainly in error, because he mistakes or ignores the suc- 
cessive nature of the divine teachings, and their adaptation to dif- 
ferent ages of the world. 

The first duty of an interpreter is to classify these parallels. As 
there is a gradation among them, the proper province of him who 
wishes to compare them is to form a graduated scale, whereby their 
values may be determined. They should be arranged in different 
categories. It is manifest that all analogous passages cannot be 
applied to the explanation of one another with equal confidence. 
The entire task of comparing such parallels is one resting on proba- 
bilities, for there is no mathematical demonstration or certainty in 
theological evidence. When two places are brought together and 
are seen to have a certain likeness of form, language, and subject- 
matter, it is reckoned probable that they express the same idea ; and 
therefore the more obscure is elucidated by the plainer. There is 
thus a calculation of probabilities. Certain things lead to the pro- 
bable inference that there is a parallelism of idea. The evidence 
tending to the conclusion is merely probable. Now there are two 
things which affect the character of the probability, viz., the number 
and nature of the passages on which it is founded, and their dis- 
tribution in the Bible. In estimating the former properties belong- 
ing to the passages supposed to be analogous, it is impossible to draw 
exact lines of demarcation. Critical sagacity must be mainly relied 
on. The number and nature must be left indeterminate, each inter- 
preter judging for himself how far both should be taken into account 
in making up a certain amount of evidence. In regard to the dis- 
tribution of passages, much will depend on the fact that the writers 
of compared texts present a resemblance in the individuality of their 
persons, and in the occasions that gave rise to their works. The 
closer their likeness in these respects, the greater is the probability 
that the passages really enunciate the same idea. Here then is a 
principle, on which it is possible to make a classification in the 
variable and unequal probability determining texts to be parallel. 
According as passages approach one another in certain respects, may 
one be explained by the aid of another. Cellerier, who has dis- 
cussed this subject with much judgment, classifies the degrees of 
probability under the following heads. ' 

1. The lowest kind of probability attaches to parallel passages 
taken here and there throughout the Bible, without regard to the 
nature of the writings to which they belong, or the ages and 
authors producing them. Here much will depend on the matter 
treated of in the passages. If it be of a fundamental nature, or 
belong to the essentials of religion, the parallels in question are 
important. The probability will be great that they express the 
same idea. On the other hand, if the passages refer to points on 

1 Manuel d'Hermeneutique, p. 209. 



Parallels. 299 

which the teaching of the Bible has varied, there is less probability 
that they are parallel in idea. 

2. Texts taken from the Old Testament alone, without regard to 
the writings, epochs, and authors to which they belong, have a greater 
degree of probability attaching to them. It is more likely that they 
are parallel in idea. This arises from the general sameness of the 
revelation contained in the Old Testament books. It is altogether 
provisional and preparatory. Doubtless it partakes at the same time 
of a successive character, and has therefore varied in the course of 
ages. But the variation is inconsiderable and gradual, since the 
Jews were slow to apprehend new truths. 

3. Parallels gathered from contemporary authors not alike situ- 
ated, or from authors placed in similar positions without being con- 
temporary. Here two elements of resemblance are taken into 
account, viz. those of time and of situation or office. Thus Isaiah 
and Ezekiel, though not contemporary, were both prophets, and may 
therefore be compared in respect to furnishing parallels. In like 
manner Ezra and Malachi, though not called to fulfil similar duties, 
were contemporary, and as such may exhibit parallels consisting in 
ideas. 

4. A still higher degree of probability will belong to texts taken 
from writers not only contemporaneous but also similarly situated, 
such Isaiah, Joel, and Hosea. So too in the New Testament in 
relation to Peter and Paul. 

5. Parallels taken from different writings of the same author must 
be put in a still higher category ; for example, such as are found in 
the Epistles to the Bomans and Ephesians. This will include the 
discoures of our Lord reported by different evangelists. 

6,. Parallels in one and the same work, or in analogous composi- 
tions of the same author, come next in the ascending scale of proba- 
bility. To this head belong the Psalms of David that treat of the 
same topics, the pastoral epistles, &c. The discourses of Christ 
reported in one Gospel, fall in like manner under the present head. 

7. The highest probability of all belongs to parallels taken from 
one paragraph or piece of the same work ; for example, from one 
chapter or division of the book of Isaiah. A discourse or discourses 
of Jesus Christ belonging to one fragment of the same Gospel belong 
here. 

Such are the gradations, as to evidence, of parallels in idea. A 
greater or less probability attaches to their parallelism ; and therefore 
they are more or less useful in mutual explanation in proportion to 
their place in these different categories. 

For facilitating the comparison of parallels tables have been made, 
which save time and trouble. The following table will be found 
useful. 

1 Chron. i. 1—4. - Gen. v. 

i. 5—23. .... x. 2—29. 

i. 24—27. - xi. 10. 

i. 29—31. --- - xxv. 13—15. 

L 32, 33. xxv. 2 — 4. 

i. 35—54. - xxxvi. 10—43. 

ii. 3 ; 4. - - - - xxxviii. 3—30. 



Chron. ii. 


5. 




ii. 


6— 


3. 


ii. 


10- 


-12. 


ii. 


13- 


-17. 


iii. 


1— 


-9. 


iii. 


10- 


-19. 


iv. 


24. 




iv. 


28- 


-31. 


v. 


1— 


L0. 


v. 


30- 


-41. 


vi. 


39- 


-66. 


vii 


1- 


-5. 


vii 


6- 


-12. 


vii 


. 13. 




vii 


. 14 


—19 


vii 


. 20 


—29 


vii 


30—40. 


viii. 1- 


-28. 


viii. 29 


—40 


ix. 


35- 


-44. 


ix. 


2 — 


34. 



300 Biblical Interpretation. 

Gen. xlvi. 12. 
- Josh. vii. 1. 17, 18. 
Ruth iv. 19. 

- - - 1 Sam. xvi. 6., &c. 
2 Sam. iii. 3—6., v. 14. 

- - - Books of Kings. 

- - - Num. xxvi. 12. 
Josh. xix. 2 — 5. 

- - - Gen. xlvi. 9. ; Num. xxvi. 5.; Josh. xiii. 
15. 17. 

Ezra vii. 1 — 5. 

Josh. xxi. 10—39. 

Gen. xlvi. 13. ; Num. xxvi. 23. 

Gen. xlvi. 21. ; Num. xxvi. 38 — 40.; 

1 Chron. viii. 1., &c. 
Gen. xlvi. 24. 

- Num. xxvi. 29., xxvii. 1. 
Num. xxvi. 34—38. ; Josh. xvi. 5., &c. 

- - - Num. xxvi. 44 — 47. 
Num. xxvi. 38 — 40.; 1 Chron. vii. 6., &c. 

1 Sam. ix. 1. ; xiv. 49—51. 

Neh. xi. 3 — 24. 

The above list has been taken from De Wette, who gives similar 
examples from the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. But 
for these we must refer the reader to his Introduction to the Old 
Testament. 

In the comparison of the Gospels, the tables of Harmonists will be 
serviceable, such as the Greek harmonies of Roediger and Robinson, 
with the English ones of Newcome and Robinson. 

Illustrative examples are such as the following. 

Isa. lxv. 25. " The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the 
lion shall eat straw like the bullock ; and dust shall be the serpent's 
meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, 
saith the Lord." This is a parallel to Isa. xi. 6 — 9. The latter is 
figurative, as is shown by the termination of the ninth verse. Hence 
the present language must also be figurative. It refers to the Gos- 
pel dispensation, and to a period of it still future, when' mutual ani- 
mosities shall cease and noxious influences be known no more, men 
living together in a state of peace and concord. 

Rom. vii. 5. " For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins 
which were by the law did work in our members to bring forth fruit 
unto death." Here the expression to be in the flesh, which is variously 
explained, receives light from the parallel viii. 8., " So then they that 
are in the flesh cannot please God," they who are in a state of 
spiritual death, in whom the irvsv/xa is not active. This is required 
by the context, especially the sixth and seventh verses. Hence it 
determines the meaning of vii. 5. " when we were in the flesh," i.e., 
in our natural state, not when we understood and observed the law in a 
bare literal sense, without looking further for a spiritual intention in it, 
as Locke interprets. 

1 Cor. xiv. 34. " Let your women keep silence in the churches ; 
for it is not permitted unto them to speak ; but they are commanded 
to be under obedience, as also saith the law." Here what is meant 
by speaking in the churches might appear doubtful. But it is ex- 



Parallels. 301 

plained by the parallel passage, 1 Cor. xi. 5., where we read of a 
woman -praying and prophesying with her head uncovered. Taking 
the two places together, we learn that the Apostle Paul blames 
women for having their heads uncovered in meetings of the church ; 
and also for publicly teaching, or taking the lead in religious exer- 
cises. 

The 112th Psalm appears to have proceeded from the same author 
as the 111th. In the fourth verse of" it we read, " Unto the upright 
there ariseth light in the darkness : he is gracious, and full of com- 
passion, and righteous." It is doubtful whether the second clause, 
He is gracious, &c. be said of the righteous man, or of God. Let us 
therefore compare the parallel in the 111th, where we read, " the 
Lord is gracious, and full of compassion." Hence the last is the pro- 
bable meaning, especially as the same language is elsewhere descrip- 
tive of God. Hengstenberg however, and his follower Alexander, 
refer it to the righteous man. Olshausen rightly takes the opposite 
view. 

Num. xiii. 1, 2, 3. and Deut. i. 22. are parallel, and mutually 
illustrate one another. In the former passage, Moses is said to have 
sent forth spies to search out the land of Canaan by the express 
commandment of God ; but in the latter the people themselves spake 
to Moses to send the spies. God commanded it. The people desired 
it. The wish of the latter coincided with the command of the 
former. Thus the places are not contradictory, as De Wette sup- 
poses. They supplement without contradicting one another. 

Exod. xx. 1 — 17. is parallel to Deut. v. 6 — 21. So also Num. 
xxxv. 24 — 30. with Deut. xix. 12 — 18. ; Num. xxvii. 14. with Deut. 
iii. 26, 27. 

Eph. ii. 5. " Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us 
together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) and hath raised us up 
together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ 
Jesus." To this is parallel Col. ii. 13., " And you, being dead in 
your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened 
together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses," &c. From 
the latter passage, it is evident that the sitting together in heavenly 
places in Christ Jesus is a state belonging to the present life, a state 
of high spiritual privilege and enjoyment, equivalent to the forgive- 
ness of all sins, or rather consequent upon it. 

Col. iii. 16. is parallel with Eph. v. 18, 19. " Filled with the Spirit; 
speaking to yourselves," is equivalent to, " in all wisdom teaching and 
admonishing one another." 

Gen. xxxii. 24 — 30. is parallel with Hoseaxii. 3 — 5., both passages 
referring to the same transaction. In Hosea the character of the 
person with whom this remarkable conflict by night was conducted, 
is clearly defined. The prophet styles him an angel, God, Jehovah, 
God of hosts ; and, Jehovah is his memorial. In Genesis he is less 
plainly indicated, though even there Jacob appears to recognise him 
when he requests his blessing. 

Isa. xxxvi. 14 — 20. is parallel to 2 Chron. xxxii. 13 — 15. 

Col. i. 16. has John i. 3. for a parallel. Hence syhsro in the 



302 Biblical Interpretation. 

latter should not be rendered done, as though the apostle meant to 
say that all things connected with the gospel dispensation were done 
by him. The verb ktl^o), in the Epistle to the Colossians, can only 
mean create, and therefore both state that all things were created by 
Christ. 

A few examples of mistakes committed with respect to parallels 
will now be adduced. 

Psal. cv. 28. " He sent darkness, and made it dark ; and they re- 
belled not against his word." Many refer to Exod. x. 22. as the 
parallel to this, where the plague of darkness is noticed. But there 
are objections. It disturbs the order of the plagues which is else- 
where observed, and it admits a contradiction of the history, which 
expressly affirms that the Egyptians did resist the word of God after 
the plague of darkness. This latter objection cannot well be evaded 
by referring the last clause to Moses and Aaron. Hence the dark- 
ness spoken of in the Psalm must be figurative for distress, and so 
Exod. x. 22. is not parallel. Olshausen however still maintains the 
contrary. 

John xxi. 17., 1 Johnii. 20. The knowledge spoken of in these two 
passages is not similar, and therefore they are not parallel. In the 
former, Peter alludes to the knowledge of the heart, and therefore 
he ascribes omniscience to Christ. " Lord, thou knowest all things." 
But in the latter, the apostle refers to the knowledge of doctrines : 
Ye know all things, i. e., ye know all evangelical truth. This is not 
omniscience, as the former is. 

We cannot avoid thinking that Psal. li. 5., " Behold, I was shapen 
in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me," has been inju- 
diciously brought into parallelism with Eph. ii. 3., where it is written, 
" And were by nature the children of wrath, even as others." We do 
not hold with some, that the iniquity mentioned in the verse was 
that of the writer's mother. It was his own. But the point lost 
sight of appears to us to be the individuality of the writer. He 
speaks for himself and of himself, if it be thought that the title is cor- 
rect in ascribing the psalm to David. Even if the title be erroneous 
in this case, and the composition be of much later origin than David, 
as is probable ; supposing too a national reference in it, as Hitzig and 
Olshausen maintain, its inapplicability as a parallel to Eph. ii. 3. is 
not the less perceptible. For the writer is a poet, expressing strong 
personal emotions. Whether he speaks for himself or for the nation 
generally, it is unauthorised to take his words as the literal language 
of prose. They should not be urged, in a strict metaphysical sense, 
as if they uttered a theology of the intellect; they are rather the 
theology of the feelings. The poet expresses very strongly that he had 
been an early, habitual sinner. Hence we cannot regard the verse as 
the. locus classicus of the Old Testament in reference to the doctrine 
of original sin. 

Parallels are most easily derived from concordances, such as 
Fiirst's to the Hebrew Bible, and Bruder's to the Greek Testament, 
But these works are better fitted to supply verbal than real parallels. 
The best lexicons are also serviceable, those of Gesenius, Bret- 



Parallels. 303 

Schneider, Wahl, and Robinson. There are also editions of the Scrip- 
tures, especially English ones, with copious marginal references. 
But parallels taken from the margins of translations should not be 
trusted. The originals themselves are the only sure source. An 
attentive perusal of the Bible, or of separate books perused at short 
intervals of time, will furnish parallels. In the course of repeated 
examinations of biblical books they may be noted on the margin of 
the copy used. 

Although passages quoted in the New Testament cannot be pro- 
perly styled parallel to their originals in the Old but rather identical 
with them, their mutual relation bears great resemblance to that of 
parallels. The interpreter should therefore compare words occur- 
ring in the two parts and two languages of the Bible. A statement 
in the Old Testament would often be obscure apart from its recur- 
rence in the New. The latter presents the substantial verity which 
had been dimly shadowed in the ancient dispensation. In examining 
passages in the Old Testament which are cited in the New and using 
both like parallels for mutual illustration it should be borne in mind, 
that the apostles and evangelists did not adhere verbally or strictly to 
the text cited. They quoted loosely and from memory. Hence some 
caution must be employed in dealing with their citations, lest certain 
significations be attached to words and phrases under their guidance, 
which the original Hebrew will scarcely bear. All that they seem to 
have attended to was the substantial idea of the passage. It would 
be wrong, for example, to interpret DwK, in Psal. xcvii. 7. by angels, 
because the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews has ayysXot as its 
representative, Heb. i. 6. It refers to false gods, whose existence is 
assumed that they may be treated with greater contempt. It would, 
in like manner, be hasty to think that the word bed in Gen. xlvii. 31. 
should be staff, because it is represented in Heb. xi. 21. by pafihos, 
staff, which is the Septuagint rendering. Such particulars were re- 
garded as unimportant. Although the LXX. may not have translated 
correctly, yet if the passage in their version was sufficient for the 
writers' purpose, it was used without hesitation just as the words 
stood. 

If citations be not placed in the category of parallels, they may be 
considered as an appendix and help to them in the business of inter- 
pretation. 

The method of interpretation by parallels is most important. Its 
utility indeed is admitted by all, for all are more or less accustomed 
to examine Scripture in this manner. Every one practises it, the 
simple reader who knows nothing of criticism or science, as well as 
the scholar. As passages remote and apparently dissimilar come 
together under its operation, a beautiful harmony between the parts 
of revelation is brought to light ; and the mind is prompted to pursue 
the inviting path opened up to view, in quest of other analogies. 
But however attractive the method of interpretation by parallels may 
be, it is often unskilfully used. Many apply it both ignorantly and 
unthinkingly. Not perceiving that is rests on a calculation of proba- 
bilities which have very different degrees of value, they are misled by 



304 Biblical Interpretation. 

the instrument in question. They are not in a condition to see that 
certain things must exist, in order to give it a weight in exegesis. 
The utility of it when prudently employed is great ; but it has been 
much abused. 

1. The chief thing which should be sought is, that the parallel 
ideas be clear, positive, and closely resembling one another, i. e. that 
the highest probability exists of their being really parallel. In this 
case an obscure passage receives light from a plan one ; or the ob- 
scurer from one that is less obscure. 

2. This instrument serves to give a critical and full view of 
historical facts described or referred to in different places. It does 
so by bringing into palpable light all the details of a transaction, 
showing their occasional inexactness, by confirming the truth of 
certain facts, and completing all the circumstances. Examples of 
each of these have been given from the three accounts of the miracle 
wrought on blind Bartimeus at Jericho ; from the various accounts 
of Paul's conversion on the way to Damascus ; and from the history 
of Mary coming to anoint Jesus and drawing upon herself the 
censure of Judas Iscariot. The Gospels are placed in a new light 
by minute comparisons of parallels like these referred to. 

3. Another aid rendered by such parallels is in showing both the 
development and fulness of the biblical teachings. In no other way 
can a complete view be obtained of the divine communications which 
appear several times in the Bible because they are of importance. 
When the parallel texts containing these communications are brought 
together, the ideas meant to be taught are seen under different 
aspects, accompanied with diversities of detail, described under 
various metaphors, in their just relations and successive develop- 
ments. 

4. Parallel texts serve to point out the nature of the evidence at- 
taching to the sense of a passage, whether it be full and complete, 
highly probable, less probable, or obscure and uncertain. These 
different degrees of evidence are the result of the number, unani- 
mity, and clearness of passages compared. Where such constituents 
appear together in high proportions, the parallels coincide with the 
elements of the analogy of faith. An example has been given from 
Rom. iv. 25., where it is written, that "Christ was delivered for our 
offences." The same doctrine is found in many other places with 
new developments and enunciated in plain terms, not only in the 
same epistle, but also in the other writings of Paul, in other parts of 
the New Testament, and likewise in the Old. Here the evidence is 
complete and convincing ; so that the doctrine belongs to the analogy 
of faith. Inferior degrees of evidence are regulated by the same 
standard. In like manner, these parallels render an important 
service by pointing out the obscurity attaching to the biblical teach- 
ings in many cases. 

We do not know whether cautions and admonitions can be of 
utility to the interpreter in his use of the present instrument. But 
as some have been laid down by Hermeneutical writers, it may not 
be amiss to give what appear to us the best. 



Parallels. 305 

1. Parallelism of words alone should be avoided. The same thing 
as well as the same or similar terms should appear in parallels, else a 
safe judgment cannot be formed. The substitution of parallel words 
for parallel ideas has been often practised, and proved a fruitful 
source of error. Thus if one were to compare Jonah iv. 10., where 
Jonah's gourd is termed son of the night, with 1 Thess. v. 5., where 
Christians are called children, of the day (the opposite phrase), it 
would be a spurious parallel. 

2. Apparent parallels should be carefully separated from real ones. 
This has been frequently omitted by theologians. A leading word 
has appeared in two or more places, surrounded perhaps by ana- 
logous expressions, and forthwith it has been inferred that the pas- 
sages in which it appears express parallel ideas. An external resem- 
blance has been mistaken for an internal and real likeness. It is 
easy to fall into this mistake. Such as are satisfied with a mere 
superficial study of the Scriptures, or biassed in favour of some doc- 
trinal system for which they are seeking proofs in the Bible, will 
readily err in the direction mentioned. An example may be found 
in John i. 3., where the apostle affirms that " all things were made 
by the Word." The Saviour is declared to be the Creator of the 
worlds. Parallel to this is adduced the passage in Psal. xxxiii. 6., 
" By the word of the Lord were the heavens made." But " the 
word of the Lord " in the latter place does not mean " the Personal 
Word or Logos." Hence there is no parallelism. 

In the same way the words of Psal. xlv. 6, 7. have been brought into 
comparison with Isa. xxxii. 1, 2., as if the two places were parallel. 

" Behold a king shall reign in righteousness and princes shall ride in 
judgment. And a man shall be as an hiding-place from the wind, and 
a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place; as the 
shadow of a great rock in a weary land." 

" Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever ; the sceptre of thy 
kingdom is a right sceptre. Thou lovest righteousness and hatest wick- 
edness ; therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of 
gladness above thy fellows." 

Here the passages should not be reckoned parallel simply because 
a few words in them are similar. They refer to different subjects. 
In Isaiah, Hezekiah is the king indicated; in the Psalm, Messiah. 
When Alexander regards the promise as general and indefinite, as if 
it included both Hezekiah's reign and that of Messiah, the improve- 
ment under the former being a foretaste of that under the latter, he 
sins against all fixed principles of interpretation. 1 It is entirely 
arbitrary to comprehend both. 

In like manner, Prov. viii. 22, 23. has been brought into compari- 
son with John i. 1 — 18. Wisdom is said to correspond to the Word 
or Logos of John ; the phrase, " The Lord " (or Jehovah) " possessed 
me in the beginning of his way before his works of old," to be equi- 
valent to the clause in the Gospel, " In the beginning was the Word, 
and the Word was with God All things were made by him, 

1 See Alexander's Commentary on Isaiah. 
VOL. II. X 



306 Biblical Interpretation. 

and without him was not any thing made that was made ;" the term 
" possessed " to convey the idea of the generation of the Son ; and, 
" possessed in the beginning," the idea of the eternal generation, 
and to answer to the only-begotten Son who was in the bosom of the 
Father. 1 But this parallel is nugatory. The attribute of wisdom is 
personified in the Proverbs ; whereas the Logos is a person, not an 
attribute. Wisdom is said to be with God, but she is not said to be 
God as the Logos is. Wisdom did not become incarnate, but the 
Logos did. 

We believe that many pious men of warm imagination are wont to 
employ false parallels of this nature. Led by appearances and devoid 
of critical power, they are unconsciously betrayed into the use of 
spurious proofs and arguments. But the word of God should not be 
misapplied in the manner indicated. Love of truth and respect for 
the character of revelation forbid it. All necessary precautions ought 
to be taken by the interpreter against falsifying Scripture. 

We greatly doubt if parallels can be properly employed in the 
logical method pointed out by Cellerier. Exactness and formality 
cannot be attained in any great degree in their combination and ap- 
plication. No doubt we can judge of doctrines very clearly by means 
of them, deducing from all parallels the doctrine in its manifold 
aspects ; but logic is at fault in attempting to introduce definite lines 
of demarcation. 

3. Recollecting the progressive nature of revelation, and the con- 
sequent differences between the Old and New Testaments, the inter- 
preter should not attempt to bring into exact harmony the religious 
knowledge and feelings of those who lived under the two dispensa- 
tions. There is indeed a substantial unity between them, inasmuch 
as God was the author of both; but their form and spirit, in part, are 
dissimilar. They were suited to different degrees of civilisation and 
culture. Hence the expositor should not attribute to Abraham, 
Moses, David, or Job, the same views and motives with those which 
actuated New Testament believers. 

This rule has been often violated or neglected. Thus where it is 
written that Abraham " believed God and it was counted unto him 
for righteousness," for the sake of avoiding the plain proposition that 
his faith was reckoned for righteousness, one expositor brings forth 
this sentiment : his faith means the object of his faith ; that was the 
righteousness of Christ ; and the preposition sis with hiKaio<Jvvr\v 
signifies, unto righteousness, unto the receiving of righteousness, 
unto the receiving of the righteousness of Christ. This is most un- 
natural and forced. 2 

Again : Where it is written in the Epistle to the Hebrews xi. 26., 
that Moses " esteemed the reproach of Christ greater riches than the 
treasures in Egypt," some interpreters have taken into the Old 
Testament narrative of Moses the idea that he " deliberately reck- 
oned reproach, derision, and persecution for the sake of Christ, and in 

1 See Four Sermons, by the Rev. J. J. Blunt, B. P., pp. 62, 63. 

2 See Haldane's Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans. 



. 



Parallels. 307 

communion with him and his people, more valuable than all the wealth 
and honours that the kingdom of Egypt could afford ; " whereas this 
is taking the view given of Moses by the writer of the Epistle — the 
view which a Christian translating the transaction into New Testa- 
ment language and viewing it in a New Testament aspect presents to 
his readers, rather than the precise view Moses himself took. 

The same remarks apply to many things uttered by David and 
other Psalm writers. See for examine Psal. lxxxvi. 2. 

4. The interpreter in comparing parallels should remember that 
the writers of Scripture were not alike inspired. What they utter 
is correct to the extent it is expressed. They speak nothing that 
is erroneous or improper. But they were not all enlightened by 
the Spirit to the same extent. They had not equally profound and 
comprehensive views of all spiritual subjects. 

This observation will assist in reconciling Paul and James where 
both treat of the one subject — -justification. It is by no means pro- 
bable that the method of their conciliation on the topic is, that the 
former treats of justification in the sight of God ; the other of justi- 
fication in the sight of men. Both held the same doctrine of justifi- 
cation ; but they looked at it from different aspects, agreeably to the 
stand-point of their hearers or readers, and perhaps also to their own 
subjectivity. The one looked at the subjective side; the other at 
the objective one. We do not think, however, that James had 
exactly the same view in every respect ; else he would scarcely have 
employed the expression respecting Abraham that " faith wrought 
with his works," it cooperated icith them. He does not say that the 
works were nothing else than the consequence of his faith. The 
words plainly go beyond that. Their efficacy went along with the 
other. 1 

5. Care should be taken not to convert the same transactions into 
similar parallels. 

This error has been committed by some interpreters, particularly 
in the Gospels. Because events or discourses are related by dif- 
ferent evangelists in words not the same but similar, and inserted in 
a different place or connection, they have been looked upon as 
different but alike. It has been said of them, that a discourse was 
repeated or a miracle performed twice. 

An example may be found in the sermon on the mount as related 
by Matthew and Luke. Thus Greswell and others consider the 
discourse in Matt. v. 1 — viii. 1. to be different from that related in 
Luke vi. 12 — i9. They are placed in different years, and inserted 
in different connections. This is incorrect. The two are identical, 
notwithstanding the varieties existing between them in the narratives 
of the two evangelists. Luke states in an abridged form and in 
different connections sometimes, what Matthew relates more fully 
and more in order. The connection in Luke is not so well pre- 
served ; while he has brought into the sermon a few things additional 

1 See Neander's Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung, u. s. w., p. 858. et seqq., fourth 
edition. 

x 2 



308 Biblical Interpretation. 

to Matthew which create great difficulty to the interpreter. But in 
whatever w ay the two accounts are to be explained in their mutual 
relation to one another, almost all the best critics are agreed that 
they are different accounts of one and the same discourse uttered at 
the same time. 1 

In the same manner, Greswell has separated into two miracles what 
is related in Matt. xx. 29 — 34., Mark x. 46 — 52., Luke xviii. 35—43. ; 
supposing that one blind man was healed as Jesus entered Jericho, 
that other as he departed from it. 2 But very great difficulties lie 
against this view. There was but one miracle performed either on 
two blind men together, or on one. This miracle was wrought 
either at the entrance to Jericho, or on leaving the city. 

6. Another> caution to be observed respecting parallels is, that two 
similar transactions should not be converted into one and the same. 
This is the opposite of what has just been alluded to. 

The error in question has been committed by several recent critics 
in relation to the Gospels, especially by Strauss. Even De Wette 
has occasionally fallen into it. Thus the miracle of feeding five 
thousand men related in Matt. xiv. 13 — 21. and the similar miracle 
of feeding four thousand recorded in the next chap. (xv. 29 — 39.), 
have been resolved into one and the same fact originally. This is 
wholly incorrect. Matt. xvi. 9. et seqq., and Mark viii. 19. et seqq., 
present an insuperable difficulty in the way of such an explanation. 
The mythic theory applied to both Testaments will easily give rise 
to assumptions like the present, all which must be rejected at once as 
derogatory to the sacred writers and inconsistent with the inspiration 
they possessed. 

The last two cautions should be applied not only to the Gospels, 
but to the parallel histories in Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and other 
books. 

7. An obvious rule is, that when two parallel passages present 
themselves, the clearer and more intelligible should be taken to 
illustrate that which is more obscure. And as the shorter is gene- 
rally the less plain, it ought to be elucidated by the longer. This 
however does not always hold good. 

Phil. iii. 9. explains in a sentence the doctrine of justification by 
faith. With it may be compared the Epistles to the Romans and 
Galatians, where the doctrine is copiously treated. 

Gal. ii. 19. is parallel to Rom. vii., especially to the fourth verse 
of the chapter. It is clearer however than the chapter, and throws 
some light upon it. 

8. It is desirable to repeat the exercise of comparison. Indeed it 
is only by practice that ease and skill in interpretation can be at- 
tained. There is a harmonious spirit pervading the books of the Old 
Testament which cannot be perceived or gesthetically felt without 
the renewed exercise of comparison. The same observation applies 
to the JSTew Testament, all the parts of which must be viewed in 

1 Compare Tholuck's Bergpredidgt, Einleitung, § 2. p. 17. et seqq., ed. 1845. 
* See Harmonia Evangelica, pp. 245, 246., third edition, and the same author's 
Dissertations on the Gospels, vol. iii. p. 45. 



Parallels. 309 

their relations to one another that a correct view of the whole may- 
be gained. And then there is nnity between the Old and New Tes- 
taments- — substantial unity — with many diversities arising out of times 
and persons. The essential spirit of both dispensations is the same. 
Hence the repeated comparison of parallels will not only elucidate 
parts and paragraphs of books, but entire treatises, and even the 
genius of the whole Bible. No interpreter is fitted to expound the 
Scriptures aright who has not repeatedly compared parallels in the 
widest sense. 1 

9. In all passages where there is difficulty, it is of importance to 
compare as many parallels as possible. In relation to doctrines it is 
especially desirable. Dogmatic theology can only be advanced by 
the careful and repeated comparison of many analogous places. 

Matt. v. 34. " But I say unto you, swear not at all : neither by 
heaven ; for it is God's throne : nor by the earth ; for it is his foot- 
stool : neither by Jerusalem ; for it is the city of the great king. 
Neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make 
one hair white or black. But let your communication be yea, yea ; 
nay, nay : for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." 

In order to understand the nature of the prohibition of oaths here 
intended by the Saviour, we compare James v. 12. " But above all 
things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, neither by the 
earth, neither by any other oath : but let your yea be yea, and your 
nay, nay ; lest ye fall into condemnation." 

The latter passage is very little plainer than the former, except in 
so far as the serious threatening, lest ye fall into condemnation, in the 
mouth of a writer like James standing so near the Old Testament 
dispensation where oaths were in some cases not only permitted but 
enjoined, may be supposed not to indicate the absolute prohibition of 
all oaths. We have recourse therefore, on the difficult point involved 
in these passages, to other places, such as 2 Cor. i. 23. ; Rom. i. 9. ; 
Phil. i. 8. ; 1 Cor. xv. 31., where the example of Paul sanctions the 
taking of an oath on some occasions ; and to Matt. xxvi. 64., where 
the example of Christ himself appears to the same effect in the au 
sl-rras, equivalent to the Hebrew amen. After this we repair to the 
Old Testament, where it is found that an oath is commanded of 
God ; that God swears by Himself. Looking at all these passages 
together, whether they are simply preceptive, or preceptive by exam- 
ple, we derive the conclusion that an oath was not absolutely pro- 
hibited by the Saviour ; and therefore it is right and proper on some 
occasions. What these occasions are follows from the extent of the 
prohibition. And the extent of the prohibition is gathered from the 
contexts of the two passages Matt, v. 34 — 36., and James v. 12. 
Oaths used in common life and conversation without due reverence 
and solemnity, lightly, hastily, profanely, in any way which implies 
an absence of right feeling and proper respect for the divine Being 
to whom appeal is made, are forbidden by the Saviour. 

10. The interpreter should not expect doctrinal clearness and dis- 

1 See Stuart's translation of Emesti, p. 70 , Henderson's improved edition. 
x 3 



310 Biblical Interpretation. 

tlnctness on many points. The truths of religion are necessarily- 
obscure. Coming from the Deity himself, whose nature we know so 
very imperfectly as to have scarcely a distinct conception of his attri- 
butes, and conveyed through the imperfect medium of human lan- 
guage, they must be dim and shadowy to us. Comparison of paral- 
lels is most useful in showing where there is obscurity, and where it 
is unreasonable to expect the absolute, precise, and certain. The 
objectivity of many theologians has led them to find a corresponding 
palpableness and plainness in the doctrines of the Bible, which do not 
belong to their nature. They find exactness of statement where it 
does not and cannot exist. How many points are defined by meta- 
physical theologians which the Bible leaves undetermined? For 
example, much has been written respecting the atonement for sin 
effected by Christ, its nature and extent, whereas there is considerable 
obscurity in all the parallel passages on these two points. The fact 
itself is certain, because it is stated in so many texts widely distri- 
buted and harmonious ; but the precise nature and extent of the 
atonement or expiation cannot be plainly learnt from those texts. 
"Why then should divines try to be wise above what is written, 
speculate on mysterious points, and revile one another when they 
disagree about them ? 

A careful attention to the preceding observations may serve to 
show the dangers with Avhich the unwary interpreter is surrounded in 
his employment of parallels, as well as the folly of the inexperienced 
and ignorant in entering upon the department in question. So many 
limitations are necessary to be observed, that the task requires 
critical tact, sagacity, and judgment beyond the range of the novice. 
And yet many, furnished with what are termed reference Bibles, set 
about the work with a confidence that amazes the wise expositor. A 
host of such parallels as are heaped together in some Bibles, without 
order, is poor furniture in the hands of the Bible student. It were 
better to discard it altogether; for it is pervaded by no right principle 
of selection. It rests on a false view of inspiration, putting all pas- 
sages wherever they are found in the same category, to the neglect of 
the individuality of the sacred authors. Every word and phrase is 
supposed to be inspired to such an extent as to overshadow the human 
form and colour unquestionably belonging to the divine teachings. 
Diversities of idea and expression are overlooked. But there is a 
method in the comparison of parallels, founded upon a wide induction 
of particulars, having respect to the circumstances, epochs, and indi- 
viduality of the writers, as well as to the context and fundamental 
truths of revelation, which must be observed by the enlightened theo- 
logian and interpreter. Nothing has done greater injury to theology 
than the exclusive and imprudent use of parallels. 

11. Tables of parallel passages are very useful, especially where 
the examples have been carefully selected. Such tables should con- 
tain none except those which may be profitably compared. Plain 
and perspicuous places sufficiently clear in themselves should not 
be accumulated ; neither should parallels equally dark and ambiguous 
be inserted. Little discrimination has been employed on this point 



Analogy of Faith. 311 

by most English writers who have collected parallel references. 
There has been an unnecessary accumulation of examples which 
throw no light upon one another. Every interpreter should find out 
his own parallels from attentive and repeated perusals of the Scrip- 
tures. This task will require both time and study. If however it 
be impracticable, he must have recourse to reference Bibles, which 
will undoubtedly afford assistance, but at the same time may griev- 
ously mislead. The best edition of the Hebrew Bible with parallels 
is that of J. H. Michaelis, with which may be joined Jahn's ; the 
best Greek Testaments with similar parallels are those of Theile 
and Alford. Of English Bibles with marginal references and paral- 
lels there are many editions ; but few of them are really valuable 
and trustworthy. There is too much indiscriminate accumulation 
in them. The best is one now in the press by the Messrs. Bagster 
of London. 



CHAP. XL 

ANALOGY OF FAITH. 



As an auxiliary to interpretation by parallel passages, or rather- as a 
part of it, the analogy of faith remains to be discussed. When a 
passage is explained, not by one or more parallels, but by the general 
tenor of Scripture, it is said to be interpreted according to the analogy 
of faith. " The whole tenor of the Bible "is therefore designated 
the analogy of faith. 

The expression is borrowed from the Epistle to the Romans, xii. 6., 
where the Apostle of the Gentiles exhorts such as prophesy " to 
prophesy according to the proportion or analogy of faith," Kara rrjv 
avaXoylav ri)s iriarsws. But the phrase in this place does not mean 
an objective ride of faith, as many have understood it. According to 
what is stated in the third verse of the chapter, it means that pro- 
portion or measure of faith which each prophet possesses. He is for- 
bidden to go beyond what God had made known to him ; or to mix 
up Iris own natural impulses and notions with what he had received 
by revelation. Neither can the proposition stated in 2 Peter (i. 20.) 
that " no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation," 
belong here : because whatever be the sense of " private interpreta- 
tion," it cannot be equivalent to self-interpretation, implying that the 
sense of a prophecy is not to be determined by an abstract considera- 
tion of the passage itself, but by taking it in conjunction with other 
portions of Scripture relating to the subject. Bishop Horsley and 
those who have followed him in this explanation are in error. 

It is of speeial importance accurately to define what is meant 
by the analogy of faith in hermeneutics, because of the different 
views which have been taken of it, regarded as a principle of 
interpretation. We should object to a definition that has been 
given of it, viz., " the constant and perpetual harmony of Scripture 



3.12 Biblical Interpretation. 

in the fundamental points of faith and practice, deduced from 
those passages in which they are discussed by the inspired penmen, 
either directly or expressly, and in clear, plain, intelligible lan- 
guage." This is what the analogy of faith as a hermeneutical prin- 
ciple is founded on ; but it is not the analogy of faith itself. The 
analogy of faith rests upon the fact of the divinity and unity of 
the revelation contained in the sacred books. If this revelation be 
true and real, if the Bible be in a measure the word of God, its 
fundamental verities remain unchangeable, though the details are 
modified by times and circumstances. As soon as revelation is 
accepted as divine, the principle in question is just. It holds good 
with regard to every thing fundamental and important. 

In constructing the analogy of faith, or in putting together the 
materials of which it consists, different expositors will probably vary 
from one another. Some will make it of greater, others of less, ex- 
tent. The greater the range of doctrine it embraces, the less useful 
it is likely to be. By putting together such statements only as are 
clearly and obviously taught in Scripture, it will be more secure. All 
the texts relating to one subject should be compared and arranged, 
so that the plain, incontrovertible teaching of Scripture on that sub- 
ject may be fairly arrived at. Into the range of these topics none 
should come except fundamental ones. When they are all properly 
derived from the direct teaching of Scripture and joined together in 
a body, they will make a scriptural analogy of faith. It is useless to 
take at once, without much examination, a large system or creed, and 
hastily reject every interpretation which does not harmonise with all 
the particulars included in it. Let the constituents be the great 
verities of revealed religion, and the principle may be extensively 
useful. But if it be unduly lengthened out to embrace the peculiar 
dogmas of a sect or party, there is little probability of its useful 
application. In that case, the narrow adherent of a creed may be 
kept by it from falling into inconsistency ; but he will be allowed to 
follow his analogy of faith without the concurrence of others. It 
ceases to be a scriptural analogy, and becomes a party creed. Every 
sect may have its own analogy. It is easy to see the reasons why 
many have objected to the analogy of faith as a principle of interpre- 
tation. So liable is it to abuse, and it has been so much abused in 
reality, that it has fallen into discredit among many. Various inter- 
preters have used it without logic, independence, and impartiality, by 
which means mere exaggerations have been presented to the view. 
But the fault is with the interpreters, not ivith the thing itself. The 
chief accusation against it is, that it is based on a false circle of rea- 
soning, inasmuch as every passage is explained by the general teach- 
ing of Scripture, which general teaching is determined by all the 
passages so explained. But here the main point is left out of view. 
The more difficult and obscure are interpreted by the plain and in- 
controvertible put together. This is a dictate of common sense 
which men follow every day. Were all passages alike in their intel- 
ligibility or obscurity, the charge would be well founded ; but as long 
as the opposite is true it falls to the ground. 



Analogy of Faith. 313 

The teaching of the Bible embraces a great number of places 
which are clear, precise, and direct. The statements contained in 
such texts constitute the analogy of faith in consequence of their 
clearness, their number, their importance, and harmony. But there 
are many other passages more or less obscure and doubtful, which 
must be explained, within certain limits and conditions, by the 
analogy of faith so constituted. 

The value and weight of what is termed the analogy of faith 
depends on the fact, whether it be derived more or less directly from 
the Scriptures. Degrees of importance belong to it according to 
the manner in which it is constituted. These have been divided 
into four; two higher, and worthy of all confidence; two lower 
ones, having no real claim to the name. These four degrees, 
arising out of the point of view in which analogy of faith is looked 
at in regard to its origin, have been termed by Cellerier 1 , analogy 
positive and analogy general, analogy deduced and analogy imposed,. 
The last two may well be discarded, as they have no title to be 
considered in any sense scriptural analog)^. The first two alone 
come legitimately under the appellation, differing merely as to the 
way in which the principle is evolved. The last two coincide with 
a sectarian analogy. We shall therefore omit them, or refer to 
them solely with the view of exemplifying the abuse of what we 
are now discussing. 

1. Analogy positive is that which is really, positively, and im- 
mediately founded on the teaching of the Bible. It is based on 
numerous and concordant statements of a direct and positive nature, 
showing at once to the reader that the sacred writers attach im- 
portance to it, and that therefore it belongs to truth of a higher 
order. Thus it is plainly taught in the Scriptures that God is 
spirit; that he is omniscient, supreme, the creator and governor of 
all things ; that there is a future life and retribution ; that the 
Saviour loved the world and gave himself up to death for its salva- 
tion; that sin exists; that pardon of sin is offered. Hence all 
passages which appear to represent the Deity in any other light, 
as material, local, limited in knowledge and power; or seem to 
teach that there is no future state of rewards and punishments ; or 
apparently contravene the intense love of the Saviour, the existence 
of sin in the world, and the free offer of pardon, must be inter- 
preted in accordance with these primary truths. In this manner 
the analogy of faith based on what is incontrovertibly taught, is 
fitted at once to silence all opposing interpretations. Any passage 
which looks otherwise must be brought into harmony with it. 2 

2. Analogy general. This is derived not so much from the con- 
stant and repeated teachings of the Bible as from their scope and 
tendency. The frequent recurrence of the same tendency or im- 
press shows what God intended in giving us his revelation. The 
whole strain of the New Testament, for example, produces on the 

1 Manuel d'Hermeneutique, p. 192. 

- See Stuart's Elements of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation, by Henderson, p. 44. 



314 Biblical Interpretation. 

susceptible heart a certain unmistakeable impression, leading us to 
feel what ought to be the result of the truth upon our minds. And 
in proportion as the tendency or tendencies of Scripture are posi- 
tive, perspicuous, and constant, does the analogy of faith appear 
in its real worth. 

There are three elements which lie at the basis of the analogy of 
faith whether positive or general. The passages on which it is founded 
must be numerous, unanimous, and plain. The degree of autho- 
rity attaching to it will vary according to the number, unanimity, 
and clearness of these passages. Number is essential. The analogy 
of faith must rest on the habitual teaching of the Bible. Frequent 
repetition of the same thing is necessary. The less frequent that 
repetition, the less evidence is there of truth. Thus the existence 
of God rests on more passages than the personality of the Spirit. 
The evidence for the one is therefore stronger than for the other. 
In like manner, the passages which treat of a certain subject must 
be harmonious. Their united voice must agree in giving forth the 
same utterance. But the general harmony may be presented not- 
withstanding in a variety of aspects. It may not be so exact or 
precise in the case of some doctrines as others Thus the uni- 
versality of sin rests upon a stronger analogy than the weakness of 
humanity to do any thing good. And in proportion to the degree 
of clearness inherent in the passages collated, will the authority of 
analogy be greater or less. Wherever doubts may be readily en- 
tertained as to the sense of all the places brought together or 
some of them, the general evidence of analogy is so far weakened. 
Thus the eternity of future punishment, though taught in the 
Bible, can scarcely belong to the analogy of faith, because the sense 
of the psssages on which it reposes are not very clear. In addition 
to these elements belonging to the analogy of faith, the distribution 
of passages must not be overlooked. Unless a doctrine be found 
in various books written by different persons at different epochs, it 
does not belong to the analogy of faith. Or, should it be consi- 
dered as properly belonging to such analogy, the latter cannot have 
the same degree of evidence and authority. In forming the analogy 
of Scripture we should look to the individuality of the sacred 
writers, the difference of their respective missions, and the degree 
of importance which different books of revelation have for us. It is 
of consequence to observe whether a truth be clearly deduced from 
almost all the sacred authors, from some, or from one ; from the Old 
Testament and the New, or from one of them only ; from authors 
widely separated by time, position, and nature of composition, or 
from such as belong to the same age and class. In proportion as the 
passages whence a doctrine is deduced are distributed over various 
ages and authors, through books more or less important, will they 
constitute an analogy more or less sure. Thus an analogy of faith 
derived from Isaiah alone would be less certain than if it were 
founded on Isaiah and Jeremiah ; and by adding other books, as 
well as enlarging the time within which they were written, we 
should gradually increase its authority. A doctrine resting on the 



I 



Analogy of Faith. 315 

teachings of Paul's Epistles alone is of less weight than if it were 
deduced at the same time from other Epistles and the Gospels. In 
short, a doctrine must be pretty well distributed to make it belong 
to the analogy of faith. One book, one person's writings, one 
period, are not sufficient to entitle a truth to a place in a scriptural 
analogy. Agreeably to these remarks, we should be disinclined to 
put the doctrine of eternal punishment into those biblical teachings 
which constitute together the analogy of faith, because it is not 
distributed. It is not in the Epistles, where the teachings are more 
dogmatic and positive than in the Gospels. It is deduced from the 
latter alone, and from places too in them, where the statements are 
figurative, indefinite, informal. 1 

We have thus seen that number, harmony, clearness, and distri- 
bution of passages are required in such as constitute the basis of 
scriptural analogy. And as there are degrees in all these, the au- 
thority of analogy will vary accordingly. They are together essential. 
The passages must be tolerably numerous ; they must be concordant, 
plain, and distributed among various books proceeding from writers 
living at different epochs. But in relation to the precise number 
of passages, the exact degree of harmony, the measure of perspi- 
cuity, and the extent of distribution, nothing can be positively fixed. 
Different interpreters will entertain different opinions as to these 
particulars, and draw the line between the constituent elements of 
analogy somewhat differently. We should be disposed to require 
a large measure of these elements in its composition. It ought to 
be founded on many passages ; on very harmonious ones ; on such 
as are obvious and incontrovertible ; as well as on such as are widely 
scattered through many parts of the Old and New Testaments 
written by authors distant in time and position. In this manner 
we should have an analogy all the more certain and authoritative. 
By lessening the proportions in each element, the analogy becomes 
weaker. 

The following observations relate to the analogy of faith in the 
higher degrees of it arising from the nature of its constituent ele- 
ments. We shall refer, in the first place, to its utility, and next to 
its consequences. 

Its uses in the interpretation of Scripture may be summed up 
under the following heads : — 

(a.) It places the primary truths of revelation in a most satis- 
factory light, so that they appear at once beyond the reach of all 
reasonable opposition. Bringing together the essence of the biblical 
teaching, it imparts a character of universality and certainty to it 
which readily convinces the reader. The honest seeker of truth 
obtains that divine treasure on which he can repose with absolute 
certainty, and feel secure in prospect of eternity. He gets beyond 
the region in which human passions have free scope, tarnishing and 
obscuring the revelation God has given, into the domain common 
to all sects and belonging to all confessions, where light is diffused 

1 Cellerier. p. 196. et seqq. 



316 Biblical Interpretation. 

around, preventing him from stumbling. Confident that he has 
perceived the general teaching of the Bible, he can more easily 
satisfy himself in regard to the details, when they are brought 
forward into the vicinity of the leading truths which Scripture uni- 
formly assumes or asserts. 

(b.) The analogy of faith enables the interpreter to separate the 
teachings of the Bible according to their importance or certainty. 
It assists him in distinguishing those which are plain, obvious, and 
frequently asserted from those which are only probable — the clear 
from the vague and obscure. There is a necessary connection be- 
tween the importance and the frequency of what is taught. The 
frequency of a biblical instruction leads to a perception of its im- 
portance. Primary and secondary truths are separated from one 
another. The leading design of God in giving a revelation to men 
is apprehended. Subordinate doctrines are not exalted into the 
place of primary, nor primary ones lowered from their proper rank. 
Thus the interpreter is delivered from narrow views of the Bible, 
while he is able to attach proportionate weight to its various teach- 
ings. By assigning a primary value to the evident and incontro- 
vertible, he will not fall into the error of giving an undue place 
to minor and secondary statements which appear but seldom in the 
biblical writings. 

(c.) The analogy of faith enables the interpreter to estimate aright 
the value of isolated statements, while it prevents him from under- 
standing them in a sense contrary to the general teaching of the 
Bible. Things enunciated but rarely, possibly once or twice, are of 
no weight in opposition to others repeatedly and plainly advanced, 
and must be qualified in such a manner by the general tendency of 
the biblical doctrine as to fit in with it. Thus the sin against the 
Holy Ghost should be so explained as not to infringe on the doctrine 
of pardon offered to all however vile their character. 

(rf.) The analogy of faith will lead the interpreter to reject at once 
many hypotheses which have been made in connection with passages 
in the Bible — many ingenious and subtle explanations which have 
been put upon paragraphs and books. What far-fetched ideas have 
been put into Scripture by the ingenuity or perverseness of the 
human mind is known to every one. But such vain conjectures or 
idle sophisms are soon dissipated in the light of the present test. 

(e.) The analogy of faith is also useful in enabling the expositor to 
subordinate certain historical facts or mysterious dispensations of God 
to the general doctrine of his perfections and love. Thus the extir- 
pation of the Canaanites must be viewed in such a light as not to 
trench upon or tarnish the divine goodness. The Divine Being is 
uniformly described in Scripture as good to all his creatures ; and the 
arrangement in question must not be allowed to throw any dark 
cloud over the lustre of His infinite goodness. 1 

The consequences or principles resulting from the analogy of faith 
may be described under the following heads : — 

1 See Cellerier, p. 199. et seqq. 



Analogy of Faith. 317 

(a.) A doctrine supported by the analogy of faith cannot be 
weakened or set aside by a passage which appears to teach the con- 
trary ; for in this case the passage must be unique, obscure, or ill- 
understood. Wherever such discrepancy appears, the interpreter's 
duty is to reconcile it as naturally as he can. But if he cannot 
introduce harmony between the statement in the passage and the 
primary doctrine, he ought to give the preference to the latter, inas- 
much as it rests on a plain and positive basis. The former can weigh 
nothing in opposition to the latter. 

Thus the goodness of God to all men is a doctrine resting on the 
analogy of faith. It is derived from the general and uniform teach- 
ing of Scripture. Such passages as the following imply or assert it 3 
viz., Dent. v. 29., Ezek. xviii. 23. 32., xxxiii. 11., Psal. cxlv. 9., 
Matt, xxiii. 37., John iii. 16., 1 Tim. ii. 4., Titus ii. 11., 2 Peter iii. 
9. But in Prov. xvi. 4. there is a statement which appears to con- 
tradict this doctrine. " The Lord hath made all things for himself; 
yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."' Supralapsarians conclude 
from the words in question, that the wicked were created to be con- 
demned, in order that God's absolute sovereignty might be exalted 
and glorified. But this view of predestination, involving the repro- 
bation of the impenitent, as far as it is based on the text, must be in- 
correct, because the text so understood militates against the analogy 
of faith in regard to the paternal goodness of God. Hence the sense 
must be brought into harmony with the latter, which some manage 
to effect by another rendering, " The Lord hath made all things to 
answer to themselves (i. e., aptly to refer to one another), yea, even 
the wicked for the evil day" (i. e., to be the executioner of evil to 
others), on which account they are called the rod of Jehovah in Scrip- 
ture (Isa. x. 5.). But this version is little if at all better than the 
received one, though many critics adopt it. The correct rendering 
would be, " Jehovah has made every thing for its end ; yea, even the 
wicked for the day of evil ;" and the meaning must be that God has 
so ordained or arranged every thing to answer its purpose that the 
wicked cannot escape the punishment inevitably following sin. God 
has so connected sin and suffering (here called the evil day), that 
there is no escape for the impenitent sinner. The passage therefore 
merely states a fact or principle in the moral government of God. He 
is glorified in all things which can possibly happen. 1 

Another example of the same kind is in 1 John iii. 6. " Whosoever 
is born of God doth not commit sin ; for his seed remaineth in him ; 
and he cannot sin because he is born of God." Here the impecca- 
bility of believers appears to be broadly asserted. But this is con- 
tradicted by the analogy of faith, as well as by the context itself of 
the same Epistle (1 John i. 8 — 10.). It is the general doctrine of 
Scripture that no man, however holy, is free from sin in this life. 
"If we say," says the Apostle John, "that we have no sin, we de- 
ceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Hence such a sense 
must be attached to the passage in iii. 6., as is consistent with the 

1 See Stuart's Commentary on the text 



318 Biblical Interpretation. 

tenor of the Bible teachings, as well as with John's own statements 
in the same letter. " Whosoever is born of God cloth not commit 
sin (habitually) ; for his seed remaineth in him ; and he cannot sin 
(habitually as long as that seed remaineth in him) because he is born 
of God." The inspired writer does not allude to occasional sins, but 
to the habit of sinning. 

(b.) A doctrine supported by the analogy of faith cannot be weak- 
ened or set aside by a few obscure passages. Thus the doctrine of a 
future state and future retribution is plainly based on many incon- 
trovertible passages of Scripture. It rests on the analogy of faith, 
or the general teaching of the Bible. Accordingly a few vague and 
difficult passages which have been adduced as teaching the opposite, 
must not be allowed to weaken or set aside our belief in the other ; 
such as the following, " I said in mine heart concerning the estate of 
the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might 
see that they themselves are beasts. For that which befalleth the 
sons of men befalleth beasts ; even one thing befalleth them : as the 
one dieth, so dieth the other ; yea, they have all one breath, so that 
a man hath no pre-eminence above a beast ; for all is vanity. All go 
unto one place ; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again." 
(Eccles. iii. 18 — 20.) Again, "For to him that is joined to all the 
living there is hope ; for a living dog is better than a dead lion. For 
the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not any thing, 
neither have they any more a reward, for the memory of them is for- 
gotten. Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy is now 
perished ; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing 
that is done under the sun" (ix. 4 — 6.). Of the same import is Psal. 
xlix. 12. " Man being in honour abideth not : he is like the beasts that 
perish." Perhaps the two passages in Ecclesiastes contain doubts 
that once passed through the mind of the writer, not his settled con- 
victions. They are a part of his former meditations, before he had 
attained to settled sentiments. The twelfth verse of the forty-ninth 
Psalm refers to the destruction of rich fools who die miserably, like 
the beasts that perish ; but it neither affirms nor denies their punish- 
ment in another state of existence. 

(c.) No doctrine can belong to the analogy of faith which is 
founded on a single passage. Thus the sacrament of extreme unction 
is made to rest on James v. 14, 15. In like manner, the doctrine of 
auricular confession, founded by the Roman Catholic church on 
James v. 16., cannot belong to the analogy of faith. 

(d.) When a doctrine is clearly contained in one, or at most in two 
passages, and is not opposed to the analogy of faith, it should be ad- 
mitted, though it cannot be important or of primary significance. 
Thus, in Eph. vi. 11, 12., the Apostle Paul asserts the pernicious in- 
fluence of demons or wicked spirits on the souls of men. Hence the 
doctrine of diabolical agency exercised on the human mind must be 
true. But the analogy of faith does not assert it. Neither, it must 
be admitted, does it contradict the doctrine in question. 

(e.) When a doctrine which, if true, would be of great importance, 
but has no support from the analogy of faith, is deduced from a 



Analogy of Faith. 319 

passage, it win generally be found that the doctrine in question is 
false, incorrectly derived from the passage. Thus the sacrament of 
extreme unction is founded on James v. 14, 15. But the passage 
should be explained in such a manner as neither to contain nor favour 
the doctriue that extreme unction saves the soul. 

(f.) All the teachings of Scripture that enter into the analogy of 
faith, though important, are not of equal importance. Indeed it is 
very improbable that any two doctrines are of equal importance. 
But whatever be the relative importance of doctrines, it is incumbent 
on the interpreter to assign its due weight to each. Every one has its 
own position and value. 

(y.) Various doctrines supported by the analogy of faith appear to 
be contradictory. Such discrepancies are not uncommon in Scrips 
ture. In explaining them, the interpreter must not have recourse to 
an unnatural and forced exegesis. It is vain to attempt their violent 
conciliation. All the opposition they present should be fairly and 
frankly admitted. But we are sure that the opposition cannot be 
real. It is only apparent, and may be removed by patience, diligent 
endeavour, and honest desires to arrive at a solution that shall be 
satisfactory. Of this nature are justification by faith and the neces- 
sity of good works ; the divine power of the Son and his subordina- 
tion to the Father ; the w T ork of God in man and the necessity of 
man's personal and real efforts. In all cases like these, the true pur- 
pose of interpretation will be gained by looking at the apparently 
conflicting teachings of Scripture, as the two elements that make up 
one complete doctrine or principle — as the two sides of a complex 
picture presented to view in the Scriptures. When brought into 
their proper juxtaposition and considered together, they modify and 
supplement one another, giving a full representation of some primary 
doctrine which admits of various, and to the superficial reader con- 
flicting views. 1 

Before leaving the subject, we would earnestly caution the ex- 
positor against taking any system of doctrines now currently re- 
ceived as supported by the analogy of faith or constituting a part of 
it. He must first look to the basis on which analogy rests, testing 
every part of it by the evidence of Scripture. When he has care- 
fully collected together all that he supposes rightly to belong to it, 
he will then use it as a principle of interpretation with great satis- 
faction and security. He will have little difficulty in applying it. 
The difficulty lies in ascertaining what does and does not belong to 
a scriptural analogy. There too much circumspection cannot be 
employed. It is of immense importance that the basis be well laid. 
We cordially join with Gerard in thinking that " the analogy of 
faith, as applicable to the examination of particular passages, ought 
to be very short, simple, and purely scriptural ; " 2 but we fear not- 
withstanding, that a short, simple, and purely scriptural analogy will 
scarcely be made up of the same parts and proportions in the hands 
of any two expositors. The habitudes of men's minds are so different, 

1 See Cellerier, p. 202. et seqq. 

2 Institutes of Biblical Criticism, pp. 161, 162. 



320 Biblical Interpretation. 

their systems so diverse, their prejudices so numerous, that agree- 
ment on theological topics of the most transparent nature is not often 
realised. Exegetical impartiality is rare. The Bible is made to 
teach many opposite things under the manipulation of its professed 
expounders. 

Although the analogy of faith falls under the head of parallels, 
yet when it is treated separately it should be carefully distinguished 
from exposition by the aid of parallel passages. But this has not 
been done' by writers on hermeneutics, who have confounded both 
together in their treatment of analogy. Various general observa- 
tions that belong to parallels have been brought under the present 
head, and so tended to confuse the learner. For example, when it 
is propounded that an obscure, doubtful, ambiguous, or figurative 
text must not be interpreted in a sense to make it contradict a plain 
one; that passages expressed with brevity are to be explained by 
those where the same doctrines or duties are stated more largely or 
fully ; or that the sense naturally belonging to a plainer passage 
must regulate the interpretation of another which appears contra- 
dictory to it ; such rules scarcely belong to the present subject. 
The analogy of faith is a particular aspect of parallels, a peculiar 
extension of them. It is more comprehensive, more definite, more 
certain, than the usual method of interpretation through them. It 
has to do with a wider and surer range of observation. And if the 
interpretation of particular places by its means be not more satis- 
factory, it is at least eminently salutary in preventing false senses 
being affixed to certain places of Scripture, in checking the mani- 
festations of sectarian exposition, and in liberalising the mind by 
large views of the consistency of revelation, the character of God, 
and the individual responsibility of man, even amid grace reigning 
through righteousness. l 



CHAP. XII. 

ANCIENT VERSIONS. 



TriE assistance furnished by ancient versions in ascertaining the sig- 
nification of words and phrases has been already spoken of and 
exemplified. It remains that we speak of these documents at present 
as furnishing valuable aid to the interpreter in the explanation of 
sentences, passages, and sections. Perhaps their assistance here is 
not so great as in the case of single terms. We believe that it is 
not of equal value or importance. But it should not therefore be 
neglected. Versions are auxiliary to context, scope, parallels, and 
the analogy of faith. They may confirm explanations derived from 
these primary sources, especially where there is difficulty, doubt, or 
obscurity. In ordinary cases it is unnecessary to have recourse to 
them. But though there is a very large class of passages whose 

1 See Campbell's Preliminary Dissertations to the Gospels, Diss. IV. 



On Historical Circumstances. 321 

sense is obvious and incontrovertible, there is another class neither 
small nor insignificant, in relation to which all available helps should 
be put in requisition. The Bible is a difficult as well as a plain 
book. And it is chiefly to this latter class that we refer when 
treating of ancient versions. To it they are legitimately and wisely 
applied. 

Job xx. 11. " His bones are full of the sin of his youth, which 
shall lie down with him in the dust." 

The meaning of the first part of this verse is difficult and dis- 
puted. Hence the latter part depending on it, is also ambiguous. 
The LXX. have ocrra avrov svsTrX^aOrjaav vsottjtos avrov, his bones 
are full of his youth or youthful vigour, with which agree the 
Syriac and Chaldee. "We should therefore translate, " his bones are 
full of the strength of youth, which sinks down with him in the 
dust." Many understand the first clause, his bones are full of secret 
sins, which is favoured by the Vulgate, not by Psalm xc. 8. as Rosen- 
miiller and many others have thought. The English version is 
undoubtedly erroneous. 

Job xviii. 2. " How long will it be ere ye make an end of words ?" 
&c. Here the Vulgate leads to the true sense, ad quern finem verba 
jactabitis ? For what purpose will ye throw words ? or, how long will 
ye hunt after words ? i. e. merely try to get something to say, though 
it be ever so wide of the mark. The English version, though 
adopted by many expositors, is incorrect. 

Job xix. 27. "Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall 
behold, and not another," &c. The expression and not another is 
ambiguous, for it may be either the nominative or accusative. With 
the LXX., Targum, and Vulgate, it is better to take it as the 
nominative. The party adverse to Job is designated by it, who 
would not see God stand on their side. Job is confident that he 
should behold him appearing for Mm and vindicating him ; but that 
his opponents should not be so favoured. 



CHAP. XIII. 

ON HISTORICAL CIRCUMSTANCES. 

Historical circumstances constitute an important aid to the inter- 
preter. They either contribute to the discovery of the sense of a 
passage, or render a certain interpretation more probable. The 
following hexameter line comprehends the various particulars in- 
cluded under what are termed historical circumstances. 

Quis, quid, ubi, quibus auxiliis, cur, quomodo, quando ? 

We shall consider the different technical words in their order. 
Quis, who ? This term may be regarded in three aspects : 

1. Who is the writer of a book or epistle ? 

2. Wlio is the speaker ? 

3. Who is the party addressed ? 

VOL. II. T 



322 Biblical Interpretation. 

The circumstances belonging to man and determining what he is, 
are both external and internal. To the former belong such as are 
social, political, geographical, natural, habitual, including the cha- 
racter, origin, and number of the association or Church to which 
he belongs. To the latter belong the intellectual and moral cha- 
racter, religious circumstances, habitudes of thought, prejudices, &c. 
Both classes of circumstances shape and colour to a great extent 
the nature and form of writings. The external will chiefly influence 
their form and arrangement, their general complexion and tone. 
The choice of arguments and images will be somewhat regulated by 
them. The internal will affect the nature as well as the form of 
such writings. 

Here a wide field is opened up to the interpreter. By this 
method — by studying the idiosyncrasy of the writers themselves — 
he will obtain a key to many things in their works. All the out- 
ward and inward influences which made them what they were and 
none other, should be studied. The individuality of the sacred 
authors, notwithstanding their inspiration, was controlled by the 
degree of knowledge they possessed, by the natural force of their 
minds, and consequently by the habits of generalising facts and 
ideas which they possessed. The intellectual development of a 
particular writer must be attended to by the interpreter. Inspira- 
tion did not elevate all to the same height. Thus in Luke we can 
perceive the literary habit of the man. The discourse of Paul at 
Athens we could not suppose to come from Peter. James is medi- 
tative and practical ; but Christian dogmatics scarcely appear in his 
Epistle. In Paul we perceive the educated Jew as well as the 
logical reasoner ; in Peter, the bold and vehement preacher. Be- 
sides, the intellectual and moral character of the writers should be 
studied — the special mental and moral tendencies belonging to each. 
Few traces however of these can be discovered in the case of 
various authors. But we can see from their writings such men as 
Isaiah, Jeremiah, and John. David and Paul are clearly reflected 
in their works. 

And not only should the expositor study the personal, but also the 
social circumstances of the sacred writers, those common to them- 
selves and their contemporaries. These embrace things geographical 
and natural, as the nature of the country, vegetation, climate, indi- 
genous animals, usages and customs. Nor is the political position 
of less consequence. This will illustrate many parts of the Gospels, 
such as the reserve of our Saviour in plainly declaring himself to be 
the Messiah, and his injunctions to his disciples and others not to 
noise abroad his miracles. In like manner the prevailing religious 
opinions and even current prejudices, both which are included 
under social circumstances, will aid the interpreter; for there is 
little doubt that they have left their traces in the works produced. 
Such outward and social circumstances may have given rise to in- 
stitutions and precepts which an expositor must know, as for ex- 
ample, to the Mosaic legislation. They may also have led to an 
accommodation, on the part of the writer, to current ideas and sen- 



On Historical Circumstances. 323 

timents. In like manner they may have induced an author to combat 
dangerous or impious doctrines. And doubtless they frequently 
suggested images, figures, and allusions, especially in poetry. We 
need not stop to give examples of each position now advanced re- 
specting the varied effects and modifications resulting from social 
circumstances: the Bible abounds with instances of them. 1 

When the characteristic peculiarities of any sacred writer are 
ascertained in the comprehensive and accurate way now indicated — 
when his true individual stand-point so constituted is properly seen 
— the interpreter must be materially assisted in his exegesis. His 
mode of writing clearly and certainly gathered from all the indi- 
vidual manifestations which are presented in it will prevent at least 
certain expositions of particular passages. Thus the method of the 
Apostle Paul is well known. Ardour, emphasis, abrupt transitions, 
large views, profundity of thought, logical and rhetorical ability, 
tinctured with a Judaic colour, appear in his Epistles. 

The author of a book, treatise, or epistle is known by external 
and internal evidence. Uniform and credible testimony may refer 
a composition to a certain individual, as in the case of the greater 
part of the book of Proverbs, the prophecies of Isaiah, of Jeremiah, 
together with his Lamentations. This is true of the New Testa- 
ment books, of all at least which were anciently put in the first 
class or Homologoumena. But it may happen that external evi- 
dence fails or is defective. It fails in several of the Old Testa- 
ment books, whose authors are unknown. So in the case of Job ; 
for it does not at all follow that books were written by those whose 
names they bear. It is also imperfect in relation to Ezra, Nehemiah, 
the Epistle to the Hebrews. In all instances, this external evidence 
should be subjected to an enlightened criticism, as indeed it has 
been in these latter times; for it may not be correct. A book 
may have been assigned by tradition, for several ages, to a wrong 
author. 

In addition to external evidence, we must look to indications in 
the book itself. These may be either at the commencement, as in 
Canticles, i. 1., or at the close, as in Cor. xvi. 21. Inscriptions, 
however, are not always to be relied on, especially in the Psalms, 
where they do not proceed from the writers themselves of the 
Psalms, but were prefixed at a subsequent time. So too with 
respect to the titles of works, such as those now before the Gospels, 
which are evidently later than the evangelists themselves. In like 
manner, subscriptions are uncertain criteria. Those annexed to the 
New Testament epistles were posterior to apostolic times. They 
should be examined before being adduced as proof; for some of 
them are undoubtedly incorrect. Like the inscriptions or titles, 
they merely show the traditional belief. It is possible, perhaps 
probable, that the evangelists themselves may have given the title 
evayysXiov ; but Kara MarOaiov k. t. \. was added afterwards. 

The style, views, sentiments, peculiarities in a book itself may 

] See Cellerier, p. 133. et seqq. 

I 



324 Biblical Interpretation. 

indicate the author. The Gospel of John, for instance, is said to 
have been written by the disciple whom Jesus loved; and all the 
attacks made upon its authenticity in recent clays have not been 
able to shake this evidence. The language, structure, and internal 
conformation of the work bear the impress of John's mind. 

How much depends on a knowledge of the author; how inti- 
mately this question affects whole books, as well as paragraphs, pas- 
sages, and particular expressions, can be thoroughly appreciated 
only by him who has watched the progress of critical discussion 
in Germany respecting the Sacred Scriptures during the last quarter 
of a century. Internal evidence has been used for the purpose of 
setting aside an authorship well established, as in the case of the 
fourth Gospel, which Baur and his school wrongly endeavour to take 
from the Apostle John ; while on the contrary authorship has been 
applied to justify the rejection of some passage or expression which 
appears strange or unusual. Here however great caution should be 
exercised. In dealing with evidence based on diction, style, and ge- 
neral manner, ingenuity and acuteness may readily run into excess. 
An example or two may be given here. The phrase TV\n\ l^y, in 
the second division of the book of Isaiah's prophecies, is adduced as 
having considerable weight in assigning a different authorship to 
that part from the authorship of the first forty chapters. According 
to Gesenius, De Wette, and others, the phrase in question denotes 
Israel as a people, especially the pious part of them, above all the 
prophets. Undoubtedly it has a collective sense, and refers to Israel 
the chosen people. But the only sense which meets all the require- 
ments is the Messiah in connection with his Church, the person of the 
former or the body of the latter being more or less prominent in 
particular cases. We admit that the word servant in relation to 
Jehovah certainly occurs in the first part of Isaiah, though it has 
not there the collective sense. But why its having that collective 
sense in the second part should affect the authorship, contributing to 
show diversity, we are unable to see, especially as one person, the 
head of the body collective, is the prominent one, almost exclusively 
so, in some places in the second division. The authorship of the 
first division when admitted to belong to Isaiah, or at least the 
greater portion of it, must be carried into the second, unless there 
be more cogent reasons than any we have seen derived from diction, 
or from other internal considerations. 

Again in Heb. xiii. 23. the meaning of the word airoXskvfiivov has 
been variously determined. There are many indications of an au- 
thorship substantially Pauline throughout the so-called epistle, though 
abundant proof at the same time that the style in not Paul's. But 
as the word before us relates to a matter of fact connected with the 
writer's personal history, we think it preferable to render it sent 
away, especially as there is no indication of Timothy's imprisonment 
during Paul's life, while the context implies imprisonment on the 
part of the author of the epistle (see the 1 9th verse). 

2. Who is the speaker ? 






On Historical Circumstances. 325 

Sometimes the name of a speaker is expressly stated, preventing 
all uncertainty. In the book of Job the names of his three friends 
are given at the commencement of their discourses. What Elihu 
says is also assigned to him. The prophets often introduce Jehovah 
as making certain announcements. In other cases he is described 
as speaking, without mention of the name. 

In thS New Testament, especially in the Gospels, it is easy to 
mark the various speakers. When Jesus reasons with the Jews, 
answers objections, refutes allegations, the sentiments belonging to 
his opponents can hardly be attributed to another party. Cavils 
and replies are at once separated. But in John's Gospel cases occur 
where there is more danger of confounding things that differ, and 
so misapprehending the correct sense. Thus in i. 16. it is not clear 
whether the Baptist's testimony be continued, or whether the evan- 
gelist himself utters his sentiments, as is more probable. The testi- 
mony of the Baptist and that of John the apostle himself, it is not 
easy to distinguish at one part of the chapter. A like example oc- 
curs at iii. 30., where it has been questioned whether the words of 
the Baptist or of the evangelist himself begin after the verse. We 
are inclined to suppose that the evangelist continues the discourse of 
John the Baptist, carrying forward the thoughts and words of the 
latter to a higher stand-point. There is an insensible transition at 
the beginning of the 31st verse from the words of John the Baptist 
to those characteristic of the apostle himself. Alford's objections to 
this view are of no weight. 1 The prophets in the Old Testament 
and the Pauline epistles in the New present most difficulty in rela- 
tion to the point before us. 

Isaiah xvi. 1 — 6. The first verse contains the words of the Moab- 
ites to one another, not those of the prophet nor of the Edomites. 
The third verse is also the language of the Moabites supplicating 
the aid of Judah. The sixth verse gives the answer of the Jews, 
refusing assistance because of the pride of the Moabites. 

As examples of the frequent change of persons in the Psalms, the 
91st and 100th may be selected. In some, however, different 
speakers have been gratuitously assumed, as in the 24th, where the 
interrogations and replies are simply rhetorical. 

In the New Testament, especially in the Epistle to the Romans, 
objections are adduced for the purpose of replying to them. Here 
there is no formal introduction of speakers. The writer himself 
states arguments such as the Jews or his opponents would naturally 
urge, in order to refute them. 

In the first part of the third chapter of the Epistle to the Bonians, 
language is thus put into the mouth of the Jew. 

Verse 1. is a question of the apostle himself. 

Verses 2, 3, 4. are the reply and its confirmation. 

In verse 5. a Jew is supposed to speak, drawing a conclusion from 
what has just been advanced by the writer, favourable to indulgence 
in sin. 

1 See Liicke on verse 30, vol. i. p. 566, et seqq., third edition. 
Y 3 



326 Biblical Interpretation. 

Verse 6. contains the apostle's refutation of the sentiment in the 
preceding verse. 

Yerse 7. follows out the objection of the 6th verse, in order to 
show that the idea involved in it would subvert the faithfulness of 
God as well as all morality in man (verse 8.). 

Verse 9. Paul speaks in the name of the Jews. 

Verse 10. The apostle, from this to the end of the chapter, reasons 
in his own name, without introducing Jewish objections. 

Such is a view of the passage, according to our best judgment. 
But it should be mentioned, that the verses have been variously- 
assigned and distributed by the ablest expositors. 1 

In the 22nd chapter of the Apocalypse, the right interpretation 
of verses 6 — 17. depends materially on assigning the words to their 
respective sources. From the 6th verse and onwards an angel is 
represented beside the writer. At xxi. 9., he came to John and 
talked with him, having been sent by the Lord God of the holy 
prophets. But in the seventh verse the discourse of the angel slides 
insensibly into that of Christ who sent him. Christ himself speaks, 
as the tenor of the verse itself proves : " Behold I come quickly ; 
blessed is he that keepeth the sayings of the prophecy of this book." 
The eighth verse contains the words of John himself, who states 
that he " fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which 
showed me these things." Who the angel was that " showed him 
these things," is apparent from the sixth verse : " The Lord God 
of the holy prophets sent his angel to show unto his servants the 
things which must shortly be done." This angel cannot be iden- 
tified therefore with the speaker in the seventh verse, who is Christ 
himself. If that were so, Christ would plainly disallow of worship 
offered to himself, which he never does. The angel spoken of in 
the eighth verse refuses worship, in the ninth. In the tenth he 
still speaks : " Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book, 
for the time is at hand." The eleventh verse contains a continuation 
of his discourse. But in the twelfth there is another insensible 
transition from the angel to Christ who sent him, as at verse 7. 
In 13, 14, 15. the words of Jehovah are given through Christ; 
and in the sixteenth he himself speaks in his own person. The 
seventeenth verse is added by the writer. 

Sometimes an objection is perceived only from the reply given 
to it, as in Rom. ix. 19. 

The best direction that can be given, for the purpose of distin- 
guishing the speaker or speakers, is to study the context, for a true 
knowledge of the point can be gathered only from that. 

The interpreter should guard against the speaker's words as ex- 
pressing his own deliberate sentiments on every occasion. In the 
book of Ecclesiastes, opinions are enunciated which the writer did 
not hold at the time. They are either what sceptical men of the 
world held, or rather what had passed once through his own mind 
when he looked upon present things with a different eye, and lived 

1 Compare the Commentaries of De Wette and Tholuck. 



On Historical Circumstances. 327 

like an Epicurean, disbelieving a future state of rewards and punish- 
ments. There are also examples in the Scriptures where the first 
person is used merely for illustration, to establish a general principle. 
This is often done by the Apostle Paul. The Apostle James does so 
also in the third chapter of his Epistle. The writer puts himself in 
idea in place of another, personating a character in certain circum- 
stances. A notable example of this occurs in Rom. vii. 9 — 24., 
where Paul speaks in the person of a Jew struggling honestly to 
obey the law and describing his experience of the law's efficacy. 
He does not record there his experience as a Christian — his state at 
the time he wrote the Epistle ; but the state in which he had been 
once, the general experience and feelings of an upright Judaism 
striving under the law. 1 

3. An interpreter should be acquainted with the person or persons 
to whom a writing, an oracle, or an epistle was first addressed. 

The character and circumstances of the hearer or reader influenced 
the expressions and thoughts employed. If the writer intended to 
affect his readers favourably, he must have had some regard to their 
individual state and relations. 

The degree of influence exerted by all the circumstances in which 
the original readers moved and lived is very different in different 
compositions belonging to the canonical collection. It is more ob- 
servable in the New Testament Scriptures than those of the Old, 
though this may not arise from the absence of the thing itself, but 
rather from our greater unacquaintedness with the peculiarities of the 
Jewish people at different epochs. But in the case of the writer of 
Job, we believe that the work was very little affected or influenced 
by the persons for whom it was written. He rose far above these 
considerations, designing his wonderful production for no nation, 
people, or class mainly. It was brought forth more as a universal 
and original work, standing out in all time. His own personality 
appears so strongly in it as to throw entirely into the background 
that of his first readers. This remark applies to the Psalms also, 
though in a less degree than to Job. These inspired compositions 
were often designed as vehicles of religious feeling and experience 
generally. They were therefore less moulded and modified by the 
peculiarities of the first readers of them. In those portions of Scrip- 
ture which were especially revealed — where the writers were chiefly 
passive recipients of the divine communications — little of the influ- 
ence arising from the circumstances of the first readers will be ob- 
servable. But it is not wanting even there ; for the Deity adapts 
his communications to the state of those to whom they are addressed, 
no less than man himself. Agreeably to this observation, the inter- 
preter should familiarise himself with the sentiments, feelings, pre- 
judices, characteristics of those to whom the different books or 
epistles were addressed. In the Old Testament, Jewish history in 
all its extent and minuteness, embracing civil, political, sacred, 
private and domestic life, should be well known. All the relations of 

1 See the Commentaries of Tholuck and De Wette. 
Y 4 



328 Biblical Interpretation. 

the Jews should be ascertained as far as possible, since these will be 
partly reflected in the sacred books composed for their use. In the 
case of the New Testament the interpreter must likewise study the 
various sects, parties, and peoples to whom the books refer. It 
should be known who were the Pharisees and Sadducees ; who were 
the Romans, Corinthians, Ephesians, &c. 

Books belonging to the Old Testament collection were generally 
intended for the Jews of that particular time in which they ap- 
peared. Instead of being addressed to a particular church or society, 
they were meant for contemporaries. Hence the general nature of 
their contents, as Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles. Sometimes the 
prophets name the persons or people to whom their predictions refer. 
Thus there are prophecies respecting Babylon, Edom, Moab. The 
forty-eighth chapter of Jeremiah is against Moab ; the forty-ninth 
concerns the Ammonites. The second chapter of Malachi begins, 
" And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you." Occasion- 
ally, the people are indicated by certain traits political, religious, or 
civil, without being named, as in Isa. xviii. 1. 2., where Ethiopia is 
meant. Or the context may show who are specially addressed, as 
Matt. v. 1. compared with chap. viii. 28., where we see that Jesus 
addressed the multitudes and not merely the disciples. 

On this head little can be relied upon apart from Scripture itself. 
When we wish to know the persons, peoples, or communities spe- 
cially addressed in any book or part of a book, we must have recourse 
to the Bible itself. Little that is positive can be gleaned from other 
sources ; and what is so gleaned will often be indeterminate, some- 
times uncertain. Where shall we find a better account of what the 
sects and persons mentioned in the Bible believed, except in itself? 
Here at least we have certain information. For this purpose it is 
necessary to compare the various books. The persons introduced, 
,'or example, into the Acts of the Apostles appear also in Paul's 
epistles. Several kings and personages are introduced into several 
historical books. 

The importance of being well acquainted with the characters ad- 
dressed in the biblical writings, both as to their external and internal 
circumstances, can be rightly appreciated only by the interpreter 
who has studied the subject. By means of it he can distinguish 
between teachings in the Bible which are merely relative, belonging 
to one class of persons or one epoch, from those which are absolute 
and universal ; promises made to some only, from such as belong to 
all Christians ; arguments merely ad hominem, from such as are uni- 
versally valid and obligatory ; precedents temporary and partial, from 
those of general tendency and application. 

Thus the command given by the apostles at Jerusalem to abstain 
from things strangled and from blood, as well as from idolatry and 
impurity, was only a precept for the simple-minded Gentile converts 
in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia, at that time. It has no permanent 
or universal force, being addressed merely to certain persons in pe- 
culiar circumstances. And yet some commentators have shown such 
servitude to the letter of Scripture as to interpret the precept in 



On Historical Circumstances. 329 

question in a universal and absolute sense. Nothing can be clearer, 
both from the persons and the occasion, that it is merely relative and 
temporary. 

In like manner, promises of personal inspiration made to the 
apostles by Jesus Christ should not be extended, so as to apply to 
all Christians. Thus Matt. x. 19., Mark xiii. 11., Luke xxi. 14., 
John xiv. 26., xvi. 13., belong to the apostles alone, to whom they 
were first addressed. There is no warrant to extend them to other 
men in different circumstances. Yet the mistake has been com- 
mitted. On the other hand, the command in Matt, xxviii. 19, 20., 
" Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them, &c," was 
addressed not only to the apostles but to others besides ; to all the 
disciples of Christ — the Church at that time, and in it to the Church 
of God thereafter. The command must not therefore be restricted 
to the apostles as some have cramped it. It belongs to the Church 
of Christ. 

By this means we shall also dissever arguments merely ad hominem 
from those universally valid. In reasoning against the Jews, Paul 
often employed such arguments. They were accustomed to this 
method of argumentation. To them it would have all the efficacy 
of the soundest logic. In becoming all things to all men, the apostle 
became as a Jew to the Jews in this respect. He employed a form 
of reasoning which is almost indispensable in popular writings. He 
uses Rabbinical accommodations. The same argumentation occurs 
also in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Of course it is of no force to 
us, having lost its applicability with the disappearance of the persons 
to whom it was at first addressed. Contemporaries understood and 
appreciated it. They felt its point and purpose. But we are in 
other circumstances and relations at the present clay; it was not 
intended for us. 1 

Mistakes have frequently been made in reference to the persons 
addressed. Thus Taylor supposes that the Apostle Paul speaks to 
the unbelieving Gentiles in 2 Cor. v. 20, 21., whereas believers are 
meant. The Epistle is inscribed to the latter, and they are spoken 
of in the verses. The saints sin daily, and therefore daily need re- 
mission of sin. Hence the propriety of the language in question 
even in relation to them. There is no ground for believing that any 
other class is spoken to than the persons addressed in the com- 
mencing verses of the following chapter, i. e. the Corinthian Chris- 
tians. Our translators have rightly supplied the pronoun you in the 
20th verse, as the person of the verb 3 be ye reconciled, warrants and 
requires. 2 

Quid, tvhat? 

The interpreter should also consider the nature of a book or 
writing. Is it historical, didactic, oratorical, poetical, sententious? 
This study will be attended with good results in the Old Testament, 
It will lead us to discern something connected with the writers. Thus 
the books of Kings show that their writer or writers belonged to 

1 See Cellerier, Manuel d'Hermeneutique, p. 175. et seqq. 

2 See Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 320. et seqq. 



330 Biblical Interpretation. 

the prophetic class. The Chronicles, again, betray their Levitical or 
priestly origin. And if this be so, the details given will relate more 
to the prophets in the one, and to the priests in the other. Hence it 
is unreasonable to expect precisely similar details in the Kings and 
Chronicles, as Gramberg and De Wette, in their attacks on Chro- 
nicles, appear to have done. In historical books, many secondary 
and apparently insignificant particulars appear, which the interpreter 
should observe, inasmuch as they show the personality of the writer 
and the authenticity of his narrative in a way most convincing to the 
reader. When he sees the brief, simple, unpretending tenor of these 
old Bible histories, his confidence in the honesty of their authors 
will be enhanced. How true and life-like are the statements of 
Mark in his Gospel ! How vividly does he bring out minor circum- 
stances which add value as well as force to his descriptions ! Were 
the historical books of the Old and New Testaments studied in an 
impartial spirit, their authenticity and genuineness would be more 
readily acknowledged. 

In didactic books or writings, which are principally designed to 
instruct, revealed truths should be found in the greatest number. 
There the word of God, properly so called, is most seen. Cellerier 
has well remarked, that in this sort of writing the theologian must 
distinguish between the teachings themselves and the arguments 
employed by the sacred writers to set them forth. 1 The latter are 
the vehicle, the former the divine subject-matter itself. Hence the 
arguments which serve as the means used for causing the Divine 
teachings to be accepted are of less importance than the ideas them- 
selves to which these arguments are subordinate and auxiliary. 
They may be relative ; but the essential teachings themselves must be 
absolute and permanent. They may be shaped in some measure by 
times and circumstances, having a force in the eyes of contempo- 
raries which they cannot have in the view of posterity. Indeed all 
arguments in the matter of a divine revelation are a condescension to 
the weakness of the readers. It were enough that God should 
simply command and assert. Man has only to hear and obey. But 
God has adapted his divine instructions to us by means of expostu- 
lations and arguments which are necessarily relative. Sometimes 
these arguments are historical, as when James bases the precept 
respecting prayer on the prayers of Elias. Here there is a striking 
appeal to the Jews, rather than a solid basis for the duty. The 
argument for a future life contained in Matt xxii. 31 — 33. is of the 
same nature. It was meant to convince the persons originally ad- 
dressed. Both are popular and impressive, rather than convincing 
and conclusive. They were uttered with a view to the hearers, 
rather than to all men in all times. Instead of being drawn from the 
supreme will of God and the essence of revelation itself, they are 
outward, and therefore unsatisfying to every one 

Another difficulty attaching to the didactic portions of the Bible 
is the absence of a strictly didactic method. The form in which 

1 See page 170. 



On Historical Circumstances. 331 

revealed truth is conveyed is not the exact form which is suited to it 
according to the rules of human rhetoric. This is especially the 
case in the New Testament. Thus the Epistles present the truths 
unfolded in them in a style becoming an epistle, — familiar, unsys- 
tematic, and in part unmethodical. The discourses of the Saviour 
frequently assume the form of dialogue. Here the great business of 
the interpreter is to ascertain the ideas meant to be conveyed, while 
he looks upon other particulars as secondary. These ideas he should 
put in a logical order and method, whereby he may perceive their true 
relation and dependence one on another. He may adjust them as 
premises and conclusions, antecedents and consequents, causes and 
effects. This is to set them in a didactic form such as we should 
now consider adapted to their nature, which was designed for all 
mankind, and not merely for one class or generation. 

The oratorical species of writing is prompted and pervaded by 
emotion. In it the language swells out, figures increase, arguments 
become personal rather than real. The affections and feelings of the 
inspired writers are unusually excited, so that they bring themselves 
into closer connection with the individuals addressed. In this case 
the interpreter must identify himself with the writers. He should 
invest himself with their affections, entering into intimate sympathy 
with them. Peculiar difficulties however arise from this species of 
writing, in consequence of the rapid movement of the style, the rich- 
ness of figures, and the complexion of the details introduced. Many 
examples occur in the Scriptures. The book of Job abounds with 
the oratorical; so also the latter part of Isaiah. Deuteronomy is 
replete with it. Among the prophetic writings it often occurs. The 
New Testament exhibits it to a very large extent. The chief busi- 
ness of the interpreter is to seize the principal idea, and separate it 
from secondary ones. Unless the precise sentiment is extracted in 
a clear form from a passage or paragraph, the exposition will be 
confused and imperfect. Where this oratorical species of writing- 
borders on poetry, as it often does, the imagination leads along and 
controls the other faculties ; and imagination is required of the inter- 
preter properly to appreciate and understand it. As it is addressed 
to the heart, the heart must be its chief expounder ; but the heart 
cannot well analyse ideas, or separate the principal ones from such 
as are merely accessory. It feels their combined force, and receives 
a strong impression or impulse from it ; but it must summon the 
aid of judgment when the task of analysis begins. The theology 
of the heart is impulsive ; that of the intellect logical. In speaking 
of the oratorical kind of writing, that sublime passage in Paul's 
Epistle to the Romans will readily occur to the mind, " Who 
shall lay any tiling to the charge of God's elect ? " &c. &c. viii. 
33—39. 

The poetic kind of writing is analogous to that of which we have just 
spoken. In it the imagination is more active ; and perhaps the form 
is more modified by circumstances and emotions than the form of the 
oratorical. The interpretation of the poetical parts of the Bible is 
difficult, not merely because the language of poetry is more difficult 



332 Biblical Interpretation. 

generally, but because Oriental poetry presents various features 
unlike the poetry of the West. It is more highly coloured; the 
diction is more exaggerated, because of the greater luxuriance of the 
eastern imagination. The chief task of the expositor lies in distin- 
guishing the form from the substance and giving to each its due 
place and value. It has been justly observed 1 , that the poetry of the 
Bible performs a twofold office. It assumes a prophetic character ; 
and is intended to enwrap the religious idea or ideas, so as to over- 
shadow and disguise the details surrounding it till a definite time 
arrive. It serves as an envelope concealing the particularities of 
divine verities and preserving their haziness to the mental apprehen- 
sion till the appointed period arrive. This is exemplified in Isaiah's 
descriptions, especially the second part. It is also seen in the dis- 
courses of Christ respecting his coming, recorded in the twenty-fourth 
chapter of Matthew's Gospel. At other times poetry is essentially 
didactic and symbolic, being intended to carry home certain ideas to 
the mind and heart with greater force and effect. So it is in most of 
the Psalms. Whichever of these two purposes a particular piece of 
poetry is meant to serve, the religious ideas inculcated must neither 
be diluted nor obscured. They will be subjected to the one process, 
if their poetic form be treated too arbitrarily and negligently, as 
though it were of no moment. In separating the form and the sub- 
stance, the form must have its proper place, and he who overlooks it 
will not evolve the substance it enwraps with the force and energy 
belonging to it. Perhaps Hengstenberg has erred thus in various 
parts of his commentary on the Apocalypse. But on the other 
hand, the form should not be rigorously or minutely insisted on, in a 
slavish spirit of adherence to the letter, else the religious truths em- 
bodied in it will be darkened. Too great importance is assigned to it 
in this latter case. In this respect Elliott has greatly erred, in his 
Hora Apocalypticce. 

The address of Lamech to his wives, Gen. iv. 23, 24., is poetic. 
The object of the brief poem is to show the immediate consequences 
of the invention of arms. No sooner had they been forged than 
Lamech triumphs in the mode of his revenging an injury. If Cain, 
he boasts, be avenged sevenfold, Lamech will be avenged seventy- 
and-seven times. A young man had wounded him, and had been 
slain. Only one murder is committed by Lamech. From rigidly 
adhering to the form and mistaking the parallelism, some have 
erroneously supposed that allusion is made to two murders. 2 

As to the sententious kind of writing, it is found throughout the Old 
Testament. We see it especially in those didactic instructions which 
were originally delivered viva voce. It is also abundantly exempli- 
fied in Proverbs. Where it occurs^ of whatever kind the teaching be 
essentially, the sense is always pregnant and rich. This characteristic 
excites attention and takes hold of the memory. The sententious 
form in which ideas are clothed must be separated from the ideas 
themselves. It is an echo in a great degree of the times, modes of 

1 Cellerier, p. 173. 2 See my Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 328. 



On Historical Circumstances. 333 

thought, local peculiarities, and current sentiments amid which it was 
employed. It commends truths, of which it is intended to be the 
expressive vehicle. Hence it was of value only to the men of a 
certain epoch ; for its use was to bring them into immediate contact 
and sympathy with great truths. For us it is of no moment. This 
is apparent from parables and allegories. 1 

Ubi, where ? 

A consideration of the place where a book was written will often 
facilitate its historical interpretation, especially if locality be taken in 
its wide sense. Under place we include, 

1. Where a book was written ; 

2. Where a thing was said or done ; 

3. The nature of the place, comprehending geographical and 
natural circumstances, political position. 

The place may be discovered — 

(a) From express mention, as Matt. v. 1., John i. 29., Acts xvii. 
22. Here it is needful to remember that subscriptions to the New 
Testament books cannot be relied on. 

(b) From internal circumstances compared with other accounts. 
These furnish more or less probable evidence, according to their 
nature. In the book of Job they are not very palpable or clear; 
but some believe that when carefully put together, they indicate its 
composition in Egypt, not in Arabia or Palestine. Thus the de- 
scriptions of the hippopotamus and crocodile appear to show an 
eyewitness, while various images manifest an acquaintance with the 
Nile, as in ix. 26., viii. 11. &c, vii. 12. &c. 2 

The sixty-third Psalm was written by David when he fled before 
Absalom and was in the wilderness. Hence the expressions were 
suggested to him, " My soul thirsteth for thee ... in a dry and 
thirsty land, where no water is." This is inferred from several of 
the same expressions being here used which occur in the history of 
Absalom's rebellion, recorded in the Second Book of Samuel, as Avell 
as the internal analogy of the psalm to some others which refer to 
the same event. 

In the Pauline Epistles, we may learn from the salutations, the 
names of persons, and various other particulars, where the apostle 
was. Thus the Epistle to the Romans was written from Corinth, 
towards the close of Paul's second visit to that city. This con- 
clusion arises from a comparison of Pom. xv. 17 — 32., xvi. 1. 23., 
with 2 Cor. x. 15, 16., Acts xix. 21., 1 Cor. xvi. 1. &c, 2 Cor. viii. 
9., Acts xx. 22., and 1 Cor. i. 14. The Epistles to Philemon, Ephe- 
sians, Philippians, and Colossians were written at Pome during the 
apostle's captivity, as the following passages indicate : — Eph. iii. 1., iv. 
1., vi. 20. ; Philemon 9. ; Col. iv. 3. 10. 18. Accordingly, Casar's Jiouse 
is mentioned in the Philippian Epistle. The open chains also show 
that he was allowed some liberty, in contrast with his imprisonment 
at Cassarea where he had been kept in close confinement. The 
word irpanoipiov (Phil. i. 13.) also points to Pome not Cassarea. 

1 See Cellerier, pp. 173, 174. 

2 Compare Hirzel's Commentar, p. 12, first edition. 



334 Biblical Interpretation. 

The parable of the good Samaritan, recorded in Luke x., must 
have been spoken near Jerusalem, as the scene is laid on the road 
from it to Jericho, — a road infested with robbers. 

Our Lord's discourse recorded in the sixth chapter of John's 
Gospel is said to have been delivered in the synagogue at Caper- 
naum. It was therefore spoken in a public place of that city, where 
so many miracles had been wrought. This explains Matt. xi. 23 : 
" And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be 
brought down to hell : for if the mighty works which have been 
done in thee had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until 
this day." The circumstance of place increased the guilt of his 
hearers. 

In Matt. vi. 28—30., we are told that the lilies of the field, which 
appear so beautiful to-day, are cut down and cast into the oven to- 
morrow. A custom practised in Palestine is referred to, of heating 
the ovens with the luxuriant grass and flowers of the field. John 
the Baptist lives in the desert on locusts and wild honey. The poor 
have fed upon locusts for many centuries in Palestine and Arabia. 
Thus also the nature of the Arabian desert through which the Israel- 
ites journeyed leads to a correct understanding of various passages in 
the Pentateuch. 

There can be little doubt that geographical and natural circum- 
stances exerted an influence upon the minds of the sacred writers, 
and consequently on the expressions and style in which their ideas 
were bodied forth ; and if this be so, a knowledge of such circum- 
stances is necessary to the interpreter who would fully understand 
what they wrote. Hence the geography of Palestine in particular 
should be known, as there are so many allusions to it. Thus by a 
knowledge of the situation of Tabor and Hermon respectively, we 
can realise the proper and full sense of Psalm lxxxix. 12. : " The 
north and the south, thou hast created them ; Tabor and Hermon 
shall rejoice in thy name." These two mountains are on the two 
sides of the Jordan, east and west ; and they represent in this place 
the east and west. Accordingly all the quarters of the heavens are 
specified — north, south, east, west. All the world shall rejoice in 
the name of Jehovah. 

The general aspect of a country, its climate, vegetation, natural 
productions, wild animals and domestic ones, agriculture, usages, 
should in like manner be studied, as they influenced the writers' 
thoughts and diction. The scenery and outward phenomena among 
which they lived and acted impressed the imagination and heart. 
Poetry particularly, is enriched with images drawn from these ex- 
ternal phenomena, as the book of Psalms abundantly testifies. In 
like manner the Gospels give evidence of an analogous influence. 
Thus the kingdom of heaven is compared to a grain of mustard 
seed. The prognostics of the weather are alluded to in Matt. xvi. 
2, 3. The custom of fishermen to count the fish they have caught 
after the nets are brought to shore, is referred to in John xxi. 11. 

Neither should the political position be neglected in connection 
with place ; for the political circumstances of Palestine at the time 



On Historical Circumstances. 335 

when the books of Scripture were composed are reflected in part in 
those Scriptures. This influence is peculiarly observable in the 
New Testament. Judea at that time was under the Romans. The 
Roman laws and Jewish rights still exercised may be clearly traced. 
The dynasty of the Herods presents itself in striking colours — cruel, 
dissolute, ambitious. On the one hand we can perceive Roman 
toleration ; on the other, Jewish fanaticism. The readiness of the 
Jewish people to rebel against their conquerors, especially as those 
conquerors were represented by such governors as the Herods, may 
be readily traced. By means of these political circumstances, we 
can explain the contemptuous expression publicans, which was used 
synonymously with vile persons. Those Jewish tax-gatherers who 
collected tribute for the Roman conquerors from their countrymen 
were odious in the eyes of their countrymen, especially as they were 
often guilty of extortion. We can also explain the frequent injunc- 
tions of the Saviour to his disciples and others who witnessed his 
doings, that they should be silent respecting his miracles and person. 
He did not wish to be recognised prematurely as the Messiah, or the - 
fame of his mighty deeds to be blazed abroad, lest the spirit of the 
Jews, impatient of a foreign yoke, should break forth, and, making 
him a king, attempt to conquer the Romans by force of arms. 

Quibus auxiliis, with what helps ? 

Under this head are included the various circumstances that con- 
spired to bring about an event, the means by which impediments 
were removed and obstacles surmounted. The weapons of the apos- 
tles' warfare were spiritual weapons. They had promises of divine 
aid, by which they were encouraged in their works of faith and 
disinterested labours. The Holy Spirit was given to them, to lead 
them into all truth. If then their resources were such, we should 
interpret their writings accordingly. Hence it is wholly incorrect, 
as well as impious, to explain the miraculous cures wrought by the 
apostles on natural principles. For example, Thiess says of the lame 
man healed by Peter, " This man was lame only according to report. 
He never walked at all ; so the people believed he could not walk. 
Peter and John, however, being more sagacious, threatened him. 
' In the name of the Messiah,' said they, e stand up ! ' The word 
Messiah had a magical power. He stood up. Now they saw that 
he could walk. To prevent the compassion of men from being- 
turned into rage (at his deceit), he chose the most sagacious party, 
and connected himself with the apostles." 

Cur, ichy ? 

This coincides with scope, which has been already described. 

Quomodo, hoio ? 

In historic facts, the mode in which a thing is effected, or the way 
in which it still operates, should be observed. This mode depends 
on a variety of circumstances. As the Deity adapts his methods of 
working to the apprehension of his creatures and the epoch in which 
they live, a knowledge of their prevalent sentiments and modes of 
speech is necessary. The manner in which a thing is brought about 
is of less consequence than the thing itself. The result is the end 



336 Biblical Interpretation. 

aimed at, whereas the means of its attainment, being variable, are 
worthy of notice only so far as they were adapted to secure the 
result. They were the best which could be employed in the circum- 
stances ; but being relative they cannot be regarded as an essential 
or permanent part of divine truth. Yet it has been very common 
to look upon them as such — to attach to them even as much value 
as belongs to the things themselves to which they were subservient. 
The modes in which events were brought about under the Old Tes- 
tament, or truths enunciated, have been rigidly associated with the 
facts themselves, so that to deny the historical character of the one 
is deemed tantamount to a denial of the other. This is unphiloso- 
phical. It is to confound accessory with essential points, to mix the 
changeable and temporary with the ever-during. But while we thus 
protest against an interpretation that is undiscriminating and erro- 
neous, it must not be supposed that we intend thereby to lessen the 
authority of the miraculous, far less to deny the existence of super- 
natural means. When it is clearly ascertained that a miracle or 
miracles have been employed, the sacred writers not having been 
allowed to fall into the current error of believing and narrating as 
such what was merely natural, we should then adhere firmly to the 
miraculous. God in that case employed unusual means for the 
accomplishment of his purpose. But it is quite possible that the 
writers being Jews and not wholly exempt from tht± current notions 
of their day, may have been left to describe modes and means very 
much as they were then viewed, though they were surely guided in 
all that was important and essential. While they did not relate as 
miraculous what was not so, they may have described in an oriental 
method — in a form characteristic of the Eastern mind — events that 
took place, or truths which the Deity meant to inculcate. 

The manner in which Sennacherib's army was destroyed may be 
taken to illustrate these observations. The destruction of it was 
effected by a pestilential wind whose effects in the East have been 
described by many travellers. It is no objection to this view that 
the simoom is now ascertained not to be deadly or pestilential, and 
that the reports of various travellers such as Ker Porter and Bruce 
respecting travellers being instantly destroyed by its suffocating 
breath, are gross exaggerations. For God is said to have employed 
the wind as his agent ; and therefore it was charged with such quali- 
ties as were sufficient to accomplish the Divine purpose. We must 
always distinguish between its ordinary effects and those described 
as special. Accordingly it is said in Isa. xxxvii. 7. " I will send a 
blast upon him." But in 2 Kings xix. 35. this event is related in the 
Hebrew Oriental manner : " The angel of the Lord went out and 
smote in the camp of the Assyrians an hundred four score and five 
thousand." 

We are inclined to suppose that the transaction recorded in Gen. 
xxxii. 24 — 30. should be explained on the same principle, not 
literally and historically. 

It is an abuse of the method here recommended to the interpreter, 
when Eichhorn and Bauer attempt to account for the extraordinary 



On Historical Circumstances. 337 

occurrences that took place at the promulgation of the law by natural 
means, affirming that when a violent thunderstorm, such as are fre- 
quent in the neighbourhood of Sinai, happened, Moses seized upon 
the phenomenon to give sanction to his laws. The entire narrative 
is opposed to this supposition. Still less is such interpretation of 
miraculous occurrences on natural grounds applicable in the New 
Testament. The conversion of Paul, for example, must not be re- 
solved thus. That the occurrence was pictured in his imagination, 
or represented in a dream, cannot be adopted. Here the psycholo- 
gical interpretation fails to account for the phenomena. Neither can 
the mythic interpretation be applied to the events and personages of 
the New Testament. It was not the era of the mythic. Enlighten- 
ment had removed the influences which might have tended to it. 
Whatever plausibility the mythic may have in the Old Testament, 
it has certainly none in the New. 

Quando, ivhen ? At what time, and on what occasion ? 

The time when a book was written has come to exercise a most 
important influence on its exegesis. This is especially the case with 
the Old Testament Scriptures. It is possible by bringing down the 
date of their composition to a later period than the true one, to do 
away with prophetic foresight. This has been done ; and therefore 
much perversion has been introduced into the exegesis of the text, 
repugnant to the nature of inspiration and derogatory to God. 

It is unhappily the case that several parts of the Old Testament 
cannot easily be assigned to their proper period. Thus the books 
of Job, Chronicles, Esther, the Psalms in part, are difficult to appro- 
priate in point of time. What increases the perplexity in some 
cases, is the variety of pieces employed in the composition of a book, 
and the stages through which it passed before it was finally set forth 
as we now have it. Besides, the general date may be apparent, 
though the precise one be obscure. 

The Gospels are placed in different years by different com- 
mentators. But at the greatest interval which can possibly exist 
between all the times assigned to their composition, the origin of one 
could not have been far distant from that of another. 

The time may be known, 

First, from express mention, as Hosea i. 1., Isaiah vi. 1. 

Secondly, from expressions containing in themselves notices of 
the time of writing. Thus it is apparent from Rom. xv. 19., that the 
Epistle to the Romans was written after the occurrences in Acts xx. 3. 
and the first letter to the Corinthian Church. Compare 1 Cor. xvi. 4. 
9., xii. 2. A proper use of the time when a book was written has been 
employed to confute Grotius attempting to show that Caligula was 
the man of sin and Simon Magus the wicked one ; whereas the 
second Epistle to the Thessalonians was written after the time thus 
required. It was composed after a. d. 38., the date assigned by 
Grotius, as can be made evident from internal considerations. 

A false use of this principle has been made when the solemn ad- 
juration in 1 Thess. v. 27. is explained by it. Some say, that " from 
the beginning of the Christian dispensation, the Scriptures of the 

VOL. ii„ z 



338 Biblical Interpretation. 

Old Testament were read in every assembly for divine worship. 
Saint Paul, knowing the plentitude of the apostolic commission, now 
demands that the same respect should be paid to his writings which 
had been given to those of the ancient prophets ; this therefore is a 
proper direction to be inserted in the first Epistle written by him: 
and the manner in which it is given suggests an argument that the 
first Epistle to the Thessalonians was the earliest of his Epistles." 
But the adjuration does not depend on what is here stated. It has 
nothing to do with the time of the Epistle's composition. The 
apostle was very anxious that the instructions and admonitions con- 
tained in the Epistle should be acted upon by the Thessalonians and 
tend to their real benefit. Hence arises his solemn adjuration. 1 

It cannot well be doubted that the circumstances of the epoch in 
which a writing originated determined something of its character and 
form. All the events and religious influences characteristic of it left 
their impress on the minds of the writers. Religious circumstances 
in particular are reflected in the sacred books. Doctrines and sects 
have moulded the language of Scripture. Hence what was clear to 
contemporaries of the authors is obscure to us. Sects have passed 
away with their theories ; idolatry and its rites are forgotten ; 
while the Scriptues have many allusions to these religious ceremonies 
and aberrations. Hence in order to understand the genius of the 
Mosaic legislation, Egypt should be known as it then was, with its 
laws and usages. To comprehend the Mosaic books as well as those 
written after Joshua's conquest of Canaan, the impure idolatries of the 
Canaanites and other neighbouring peoples should be known by the 
interpreter. So too in the New Testament we find numerous traces 
of Pharisaism, Sadduceism, and even Essenism. In like manner the 
elements of Gnosticism are distinctly traceable in some of the Epistles, 
and in the writings of John. Such are the religious influences 
which have affected the character and method of the biblical books. 
The very prejudices and popular sentiments of the time have modi- 
fied the language of Scripture, though the writers may not have 
shared them. 

The general circumstances of the epoch have often led indirectly 
to the origin of a book. They have been the indirect occasion of it. 
But it is necessary for the interpreter to seek out the immediate and 
direct occasion. Indeed, without a knowledge of it, many books 
cannot be comprehended. Thus the occasion of Paul's writing to 
the Galatians was their having been seduced by Judaising teachers 
who had tried to undermine the apostle's authority by affirming that 
he believed circumcision necessary, and that Christians should ob- 
serve the law of Moses. He wrote therefore to vindicate his apos- 
tolic dignity, and to show that the ceremonial law was not obligatory 
on Christians. Hence the detail respecting himself at the beginning, 
proving that his calling to be an apostle was directly from God ; 
and that Peter, so far from being superior to him, was even on one 
occasion the subject of his censure. In like manner the occasion on 

1 See De Wette. 



On Historical Circumstances. 339 

which the second Epistle to the Corinthians was written will explain 
the peculiarities of it. They had acted in obedience to his injunc- 
tions delivered in the preceding Epistle. But he had learned that 
some among them had indulged in unworthy accusations against 
him, by whom his authority was greatly weakened at Corinth. 
Hence he had both to praise and to blame — to praise them for 
their ready compliance with his command to exclude the incestuous 
person, and to censure their divisions as well as to defend himself 
against unworthy charges. It is apparent that there was a conflict 
of sentiments in his mind, amid which he refrained from administer- 
ing the severe rebukes he was warranted by the circumstances in 
dealing forth, lest the minds of his readers should be provoked to 
anger against him. He tempers moderation with severity in con- 
sequence of the peculiar state of affairs in the Corinthian Church — 
the different parties who stood differently affected towards himself 
and the cause he represented. 

The words of our Lord in John iii. 20, 21. receive a peculiar 
emphasis from the occasion on which they were uttered. It was 
when Nicodemus had come to him by night to inquire of his doc- 
trine that the Saviour said, " For every one that doeth evil hateth 
the light, neither cometh he to the light, lest his deeds should be re- 
proved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds 
may be made manifest that they are wrought in God." 

The interpreter should beware of relying on the titles of the 
Psalms as giving the occasions on which they were composed. Some 
may be correct ; but others are not so. Internal circumstances must 
be trusted to more than they. Thus the title of the forty-second 
Psalm, in which the sons of Korah are mentioned apparently and 
most probably as the authors, expresses nothing definite. As those 
sons are separated from the chief musician and occupy the place 
where we usually find the author's name, the title appears to give 
them as the authors. But it is possible that they were merely the 
performers. In this latter case, we are compelled to find out the 
occasion from the Psalm itself. And here many think that David 
was the writer, at the time when he was excluded from the sanc- 
tuary by Absalom's rebellion. See 2 Sam. xv. 25. This view is 
copiously illustrated by Eandolph. x But it is exceedingly uncertain. 
Judging from internal circumstances, and considering that the writer 
expresses the feelings of his contemporaries and fellow-countrymen, 
we are inclined to place the composition in the Babylonish exile, a 
time of oppression and despondency to the Jews. Ewald attributes 
it to King Jechoniah. 2 

1 See Randolph's View of Christianity, 1784, vol. i. Appendix. 
8 Compare his Die Psalmen, second edition, p. 185. 



340 Biblical Interpretation. 



CHAP. XIV. 

EXTERNAL CIRCUMSTANCES. 

In the preceding chapter, which we have entitled Historical Circum- 
stances, it will be observed that the points embraced cannot be pro- 
perly called internal helps, as lying within the Scripture itself. 
Neither can they be denominated external, as lying out of Scripture. 
They are partly internal and partly external. They are gathered 
from itself as well as from other sources. In all cases, the interpreter 
should conduct his explanations as much as possible by the aid of the 
Bible itself. But this is impossible if he desire to be a scribe well 
instructed. He must draw his knowledge of persons, places, and 
things not merely from the sacred books, but also from other records. 
And this external assistance goes along with the internal. Both 
unitedly contribute to bring out the full meaning. They cannot 
and ought not to be separated. It is in consequence of this fact — 
the perpetual intermixture of both in exegesis — that we have not 
been able to find a proper place of insertion for the distinct descrip- 
tion of general history, geography, chronology, &c, &c. in the fore- 
going chapter. The facts of history, civil, sacred, and natural, of 
geography in its twofold division, of chronology, as well as the man- 
ners and customs of eastern nations, belong to all the heads which have 
just been considered. All that follow in the present chapter pertain 
to the contents of the preceding one. Doubtless they are more pro- 
minent and efficacious in some heads than others ; and therefore they 
might have been put perhaps under such as are most affected by 
them. For example, they might have been placed with qnis, the 
first historical particular considered. But in that case, they would 
have had too much the appearance of belonging to it, and the other 
historical particulars would have suffered. The latter might have 
seemed dissociated from the influence of such facts, or at least disso- 
ciated unduly from them. Had they been placed with one class, the 
remaining classes might have had a very distant aspect towards them. 
On this account, we have thought it better on the whole to present a 
separate enumeration of the circumstances in question, although in 
themselves they interweave and accompany all the historical circum- 
stances already enumerated. Standing out by themselves, their 
value will be better apprehended. But the reader must ever bear in 
mind that they are arranged thus for convenience, not because they 
admit of a separate application. On the contrary, they must ever 
enter into and influence all investigations respecting the quis, the 
quid, the ubi, the quibus auxiliis, the cur, the quomodo, the quando. 
They are an essential ingredient in such discussions ; and the latter 
cannot lead to any sure result without them. 

History, Profane and Ecclesiastical. 

(a.) Profane history. — This yields various assistance. Thus other 
historians may relate the same facts which are narrated in the Bible, 



External Circumstances. 341 

and so confirm the latter ; or they record circumstances omitted or 
merely hinted at by the sacred writers ; or, again, they relate events 
connected with such as are recorded in the Bible, though not spoken 
of there. Especially is light thrown on the events mentioned in the 
Scriptures, when they are predicted as future, and history can show 
the fulfilment of prophecies even in minute circumstances. In all 
these instances, as well as other analogous ones which will readily 
suggest themselves to the mind, other historians aid greatly in the 
elucidation of Scripture history. 

Thus Nahum foretels that Nineveh should be taken and destroyed, 
and various facts connected with its destruction may be illustrated 
from Diodorus Siculus. We assume as incontrovertible that the de- 
struction of the city by Cyaxares is referred to, which took place 
about 606, B.C., according to Clinton, not the previous capture of it 
by Arbaces, referred to by Diodorus Siculus, ii. 26., &c. ! The pro- 
phet says that the inhabitants should be drunk (i. 10.), and this is 
confirmed by Diodorus. In chap. ii. 6. he predicts that the gates of 
the river should be opened, and the palace dissolved. Accordingly 
the historian relates, that the river broke down twenty furlongs of the 
wall, and overflowed part of the town, and the king burnt himself 
with his palace. " The spoil of silver and the spoil of gold" (ii. 9.) 
are the " many talents " of Diodorus. Its destruction was also to be 
total, as we see from i. 8, 9., ii. 11. 13., iii. 17, 18, 19.; and there- 
fore the oldest historians, Strabo, Herodotus, Arrian, and others, did 
not know exactly the place where it had been. 

The account of Herod's death given by Luke, in Acts xii. 20 — 24., 
is confirmed and corroborated by Josephus. The place, Cassarea, is 
the same ; the assembly, the oration, the gorgeous robe, the impious 
exclamations of the people, the sudden death, are in both. The set 
day of Luke, we learn from Josephus, to have been the second day of 
the public games. The royal apparel was a robe richly covered with 
silver, reflecting the rays of the sun falling upon it. 

In Acts ix. 31. the churches are said to have had rest from the 
persecution they had suffered since Stephen's death. The cause of 
that rest is found in Josephus. Caligula at this time ordered his 
image to be set up in the temple, which excited great opposition from 
the Jews. Hence the Christians were left unmolested by the Jews, 
since the latter were engrossed by another matter. So Lardner, De 
"Wette, and others. 

The prophecy of the Saviour respecting the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, recorded in Matt, xxiv., is strikingly and minutely explained by 
the history which Josephus gives of the siege and capture of Jerusalem. 

Again, the existence of altars at Athens dedicated to an unknown 
God, Acts xvii. 23., is well attested by Philostratus and Pausanias. 
The former writes, in his life of Apollonius 2 , " It is wiser to 
speak well of all the gods, and especially at Athens, where also are 
erected altars of unknown gods." Pausanias in his description of 
Attica 3 , says, that " altars of the unknown gods " existed at Pha- 

1 See Nineveh and its Remains, by Layard, vol. ii. p. 127. et seqq. New York, 1852. 

2 vi. 2. 3 i. 1. 

7. 3 



342 Biblical Interpretation. 

leron, one of the harbours of Athens. These writers, speaking of 
the altars collectively, use the plural, ' e to unknown gods" whereas 
the apostle refers to a single altar, with its inscription. 1 

(b.) Ecclesiastical history. — This is of less utility than profane his- 
tory, because of the very short period embraced in the New Testa- 
ment history, and various other circumstances obvious to all. Occa- 
sionally however it may confirm and illustrate what is found in 
Scripture. ' 

Thus the accounts given by Tertullian, Eusebius, and others re- 
specting Peter's death by crucifixion, illustrate John xxi. 18, 19., 
" When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and 
another shall gird thee," &c, referring to the death of the cross, and 
the girding about the loins with a cloth. The divisions in the Corin- 
thian church, which the apostle in both his letters laments and cen- 
sures, appear to have existed for a considerable time. They were not 
entirely healed by the influence of Paul. Clement's Epistle to the 
Corinthians, still extant, shows a state of affairs in the same church 
essentially similar. Thus the later Epistle confirms the account given 
in the earlier ones. 

In the same manner, we learn from church history, that both 
appellations, presbyters or elders and bishops (jrpsa/3iiTspoi, and eiria- 
kottoi), were at first synonymous. This appears from Jerome, in the 
fourth century, and Hilary of Rome. It is also to some extent sanc- 
tioned by the Apostolic Constitutions, by Chrysostom, and Theodoret. 
Such testimony has the greater weight, inasmuch as custom had set 
in strongly in an opposite direction, bidding fair to annihilate all 
traces of their original equality. 

Chronology. — This is employed in ascertaining the order and dates 
of events in history. A knowledge of it is necessary for under- 
standing some parts of Scripture, while it is useful in elucidating 
others. Perhaps the most important duty it serves is the ascer- 
tainment of the accomplishment of prophecies. It tells both when 
an event was foretold and when it took place. 

Every nation has some remarkable date from which all computa- 
tions set out. Thus the Romans reckon from the building of Rome, 
A.u.C. The Greeks have their Olympiads, the first of which is 776 
years B.C., i. e., the 33rd of Uzziah. These points are termed epochs. 
Hales has given a list of them. 2 

Various remarkable events are recorded in Scripture, which fix the 
proper division of sacred chronology. Thus the Jews reckon from 
the creation, the flood, the exodus, the building of the temple. 

The first epoch begins with the creation and terminates with the 
deluge. The duration of it can be gathered only from Scripture 
itself. But here we have no other marks of time than the age of 
each patriarch at the birth of the son mentioned ; and the Hebrew, 
Samaritan, and Septuagint differ from one another in some of the 

1 See Winer's Kealworterbuch, vol. i. p. 111. et seqq., third edition; and Hackett on the 
Acts, pp. 244, 245. 

3 Chronology, vol. i. p. 211. et seqq. 



External Circumstances. 343 

particulars. The first has 1656 years; the second 1307; the third 
2262. Josephus again, has 2256. 

The second period, reaching from the deluge to the birth of Abra- 
ham, can be determined only by the Scriptures. In it also the He- 
brew, Samaritan, and LXX. differ widely ; the first making it 292 ; 
the second 942 ; the third 1072. Josephus has 993. 

The third, reaching from the calling of Abraham to the deliverance 
from Egypt, is clearly determined from Scripture ; and all agree in 
it, viz. 430 years. 

The fourth period extends from the exodus to the building of the 
temple by Solomon, and must also be determined by Scripture. But 
considerable difficulties are connected with it. In 1 Kings vi. 1. it is 
expressly stated to be 480 years. But this plain testimony has been 
invalidated on various grounds. The LXX. have 440. In the 
parallel passage, 2 Chron. iii. 2., there is no date. Josephus, Theo- 
philus, Clemens, Africanus, and others seem to have been ignorant of 
the computation 480, for they have different numbers. Eusebius, in 
the fourth century, first mentions it, and he does not adopt it. The 
computation of St. Paul (Acts xiii. 20.) appears to be against it ; for 
by assigning 450 years as the time from the division of the lands till 
Samuel the Prophet, he makes 579, viz., Saul 40 + David 40 + Solo- 
mon 3. In consequence of these and other considerations, most 
chronologers have assumed a longer computation than the 480 in 
1 Kings. Thus Petavius has 519, De Tournemine 500, Greswell 
549, Jackson 579, Serrarius 680, Pezron 962, Des Vignoles 648, 
Clinton and Cunninghame 612, Seyffarth 880. It is apparent, how- 
ever, that many of the considerations stated as unfavourable to 
the period 480 are nugatory. The LXX. have 440 by a mere 
mistake of interchange between the letters 2 = 80, and n = 4Q, as 
"Winer and Thenius have observed. The omission of a date in 
Chronicles proves nothing. Nor can any weight be attached to 
Josephus; since he has various accounts of the period 592, 612, 632. 
His detail of the particulars gives 609 years, in which he makes a 
mistake by omitting the 20 years of the ark at Kirjath-jearim, and 
putting no more than 12 between Eli and Samuel. He should be 
corrected by striking out the year of Shamgar, and adding the 20 
years of the ark, which makes 628 years. 1 Hales 2 is wrong in 
assigning 621 years to Josephus, as Clinton has shown. That Euse- 
bius first mentions the 480 years is no argument against it. It is 
not true that he himself does not adopt it ; for though he has 600 
years as the interval in one place 3 , and though his detail on another 
occasion gives 613 4 , there is no doubt that his own date is that exhi- 
bited in his tables, which is 480. Nor can any conclusion unfavour- 
able to 480 be deduced from the 490 of Aquila, Symmachus, and 
Theodotion ; from the silence of Origen, who adduces the passage 
without any computation ; or from the 592 of the Chinese Jews, 
which is taken from Josephus. The only real circumstance against 

1 See Clinton's Fasti Hellenic!, vol. i. p. 311. 

2 Chronology, vol. i. p. 299., second edition. 

3 Chron. i. p. 73. 4 Prsep. x. 14. pp. 502, 503. 



344 Biblical Interpretation. 

the Hebrew in 1 Kings vi. 1., is the computation of St. Paul in the 
Book of Acts. But does Acts xiii. 20. give the computation of the 
apostle from the division of the lands till Samuel as 450 years ? 
Certainly, according to the common text. But Griesbach has, in his 
inner margin, w>s sraac rsTpatcocrlots teal T7Svrr}KOVTa. Kal /xsra ravra 
eScok; ; and Lachmann has these words in the text. When we 
look at the authority for this reading, we find that it consists of the 
three oldest and best MSS., in addition to other evidence — authority 
sufficient to recommend it as the original one. Accordingly, as the 
passage then stands, the apostle does not say that from the division of 
Canaan till Samuel was 450 years. To reject the reading of A, b, C, 
with the remark that it arose from an attempt to remove the chro- 
nological difficulty, seems to us contrary to all sound criticism. It is 
a mere begging of the question. 

In reckoning up the periods named in the history of the Judges, 
there is great uncertainty. There is a chasm after the death of Moses. 
We are not told what was the duration of the government of Joshua 
and the elders. It must be supplied by conjecture. There is also a 
chasm between the death of Samson and the election of Saul, which 
must be supplied in the same way. The duration of Shamgar's rule is 
not given. Neither is the interval between Gideon's death and Abi- 
melech's accession. In the same manner the period of Israel's renewal 
of idolatry previous to their oppression by the Ammonites is unmen- 
tioned. It is probable, also, that the numbers are given summarily and 
roundly in some instances, for we find 40 three times (iii. 11., v. 31., 
viii. 28.). Some judges also who are commonly considered successive 
were probably contemporaneous. These and other considerations which 
might be adduced, show the extreme uncertainty attaching to any 
chronology of the period embraced in the Book of Judges. And we 
are free to confess, notwithstanding all the calculations of Hales, Clin- 
ton, Jackson, and others, who make the period much longer than 480, 
that the latter time is as probable and well supported as any of theirs. 
It is adopted by Ussher, Thenius, and Keil. The last two writers have 
rendered it very probable. Doubtless the authority of Josephus has 
contributed largely to throw suspicion on the short date ; but his au- 
thority is worth little against the Masoretic text. It is admitted by 
Hales and Clinton, that Josephus has made mistakes. To say with 
the former, that " the period of 480 years is a forgery, foisted into the 
text " of 1 Kings, is rash and arbitrary. Yet Clinton assents to the 
asseveration. We adhere to the text of 1 Kings, since it is not con- 
tradicted by the Apostle Paul in the Acts, as has been commonly 
assumed ; and since it is impossible to prove from the history in the 
Book of Judges that a longer time elapsed from the exodus to the 
foundation of the temple. No computation which we have looked 
into is on the whole more likely than the Hebrew one. 1 

The fifth period, reaching from the foundation of the temple by 
Solomon to the return of the Jews from the Babylonian captivity, is 
gathered from Scripture and the LXX., which agree in making it 

1 See Thenius on 1 Kings vi. 1. ; and Keil in Dorptsche Beitrage zu den Theologischen 
"Wisscnschaften. 



External Circumstances. 345 

476 years, But Josephus, as given by Hales, makes it 493, which 
is less probable. 

The sixth period reaches from the restoration of the Jews to the 
birth of Jesus, and is collected almost entirely from profane au- 
thors. TJssher makes it 536 years. This does not differ from the 
Septuagint. 

It will be seen from the preceding statements that there is a 
more extended chronology founded on the Septuagint and confirmed 
by Josephus, and a shorter one derived from the Masoretic text. 
The latter is that adopted by the English translators and placed 
in the margin of our Bibles, whose most distinguished advocates 
are TJssher, Clinton, and Greswell. The longer chronology has 
been supported with great learning by Hayes, Jackson, and Hales, 
to whose arguments nothing has been added by the superficial dis- 
sertation of Russell, prefixed to his " Connection of Sacred and Pro- 
fane History from the death of Joshua to the decline of the kingdoms 
of Israel and Judah." The chief difference between the two schemes 
is found in the first period, from the creation to the deluge, and 
from thence to Abraham. While the Hebrew makes 1656 from the 
creation to the flood, the Septuagint has 2262. And while the 
former has 292 from the flood to Abraham's birth, the latter has 1072. 
In consecpience of these variations and a smaller one in the in- 
terval from the exodus to the foundation of Solomon's temple, the 
time that elapsed from the creation to the birth of Christ is about 
4000 years in the one scheme, and not far from 6000 in the other. 

In favour of the shorter or Hebrew computation, the following 
considerations have been urged. 

1. No designed corruption of the Hebrew text can be reasonably 
charged upon the Jews in other places. We have reason to believe 
that the Palestinian Jews carefully watched over and preserved its 
genuineness. They guarded it with jealous care. Hence there is 
a strong presumption in favour of its accuracy in the passages which 
record the years of the antediluvian and postdiluvian patriarchs. 

2. The transmission of divine truth was easier and more speedy 
on this computation than it could have been on the longer one. 
Lamech was 56 years contemporary with Adam, and 100 with Shem. 
Shem was contemporary for several years with Abraham and Isaac. 
In this manner only two persons are necessary to connect Isaac with 
Adam, viz. Shem and Lamech. According to the longer chronology, 
the transmission of truth was neither so rapid nor so secure. 

3. It has been shown, that the date of the creation, 4004 b. C, 
coincides very nearly with a remarkable astronomical epoch when 
the major axis of the earth's orbit coincided with the line of the 
equinoxes. 

Were there nothing in the shorter chronology intrinsically to 
recommend it to our adoption we should naturally abide by the 
Hebrew text till it had been proved corrupt. As we adhere to it in 
all other cases until considerations sufficient to show its erroneousness 
be adduced, so it is our duty to adhere to it in its chronology. The 



346 Biblical Interpretation. 

following are the principal reasons for adopting the longer com- 
putation. 

1. The Jews had a motive for altering the dates of their ancient 
chronicles. After the rapid progress of Christianity awakened their 
enmity to the adherents of the new religion, it is probable that 
certain persons among them, doubtless the learned, devised a me- 
thod of weakening the arguments of their Christian opponents by 
shortening the period between the creation and the birth of the 
Messiah. But the makers of the Greek version could not have had 
this motive for lengthening the period, nor indeed any motive 
adequate to induce them to do so at first ; and after the version was 
in circulation, it could not have been altered, since it was in the 
hands of Christians as well as Jews; a fact inapplicable to the 
Hebrew text, which was almost confined to the Jews themselves. 
Thus as there is an appearance of design in the mode of shortening 
or lengthening, it is argued that the alteration proceeded from the 
Jews, rather than the Jewish translators at Alexandria. The Jews 
of the second century are generally supposed by such as argue for 
the extended chronology, to have altered the registers of their nation 
in the manner they now stand in the Masoretic copies. 

We confess our inability to perceive the pertinence or cogency of 
such reasoning. What benefit would have accrued to the Jews from 
shortening the genealogies ? "Would the contraction have had the 
effect, as has been said, of making it appear that the time their expo- 
sitors had fixed for the appearance of Messiah was not yet passed ? 
Certainly not. The Jews of the second century were not so weak- 
minded as to have entertained any such idea. It is impossible to 
assign any adequate motive. This is admitted by Jackson himself, 
the ablest advocate of the long chronology. But we can assign a 
very obvious motive for the Greek translators enlarging the chrono- 
logy. " The Chaldeans and Egyptians (whose histories were about 
that time published by Berosus and Manetho) laid claim to a remote 
antiquity. Hence the translators of the Pentateuch into Greek 
might be led to augment the amount of the generations by the cente- 
nary additions and by the interpolation of the second Cainan, in order 
to carry back the epochs of the creation and of the flood to a period 
more conformable with the high pretensions of the Egyptians and 
Chaldeans." 1 

2. The length of time assigned by the Septuagint, the Samaritan, 
and Josephus to the postdiluvian period, i. e. from the deluge to 
the birth of Abraham, is reckoned much more probable, because the 
shorter generations are repugnant to the course of nature. If human 
life be divided into three periods, the generative powers continued 
in full vigour during the second period. Hence the age of puberty 
among the antediluvians began at 160 or 170 years of age ; and by 
the same rule, Terah's eldest son Haran was born near the com- 
mencement of his second period, 70 years. 

This argument against the Hebrew chronology, which militates 

1 Clinton, vol. i. p. 297. 






External Circumstances. 347 

equally against the antediluvian and postdiluvian genealogies in it, 
is of no weight. It assumes without proof that the age of puberty 
did not commence till a third part of life had been passed ; whereas 
the contrary may be gathered from the Scripture accounts them- 
selves. Thus in the period from Jacob to Moses, the average 
length of life was from 120 to 150 ; and yet within the period, the 
age of puberty was the same as at present. Judah could not be 
more than 48 years of age at the descent into Egypt ; and yet he 
had four successions in his line before that epoch. His son Pharez 
was born after the marriage and death of the eldest son ; and yet 
Pharez had children before the descent into Egypt. The years of 
these generations could not have been more than these : Judah 15 + 
Er 15 + 2 (the widowhood of Tamar) + Pharez 16=48. The same 
inference may be drawn from the case of Benjamin. Hence the age 
of puberty was the same in the patriarchal times as at present, 
although the duration of life was longer. 1 

3. It is also argued against the shorter scheme that Shem survived 
all his eight descendants except Heber, and lived till the 148th year 
of Abraham and the 73rd year after the call. Noah himself survived 
his fifth descendant Peleg, his eighth descendant Nahor, and lived 
to the 158th year of Terah. Salah survived Peleg, Reu, Serug, 
Nahor, Terah. Heber survived Abraham himself. The first four pa- 
triarchs after the flood, Shem, Arphaxad, Salah, Heber, were all 
living at the time of the call which was addressed to the tenth 
descendant of Shem. The remark of Scripture, that Haran died 
before his father, would not have been thought necessary if the same 
thing had happened to all the preceding patriarchs. 

In answer to this it may be observed, that the first patriarchs 
survived their descendants because the duration of human life was 
suddenly shortened by the will of God. The fact that Haran died 
before his father is not mentioned as a remarkable occurrence, but as 
necessary to be known to explain the following narrative. 

4. Again, the shorter computation is improbable, because the 
country of Abraham was overspread with idolatry before the call. 
But the worship of celestial bodies and of deified dead men would 
scarcely have begun in Chaldea while Noah, and Shem, and Ar- 
phaxad, and Salah, and Heber were still living. 

This idolatry is not surprising when the multitudes of mankind 
and their dispersion are considered. The Israelites, even in the 
time of Moses, fell into idolatry. 

5. The shorter time is insufficient for the great multiplication and 
wide dispersion of Noah's posterity over immense tracts of country ; 
for the establishment of such organised monarchies as Babylon, 
Nineveh, and Egypt ; and for the dukedoms of Canaan, founded by 
Ham's descendants on the expulsion of earlier inhabitants. 

The increase of population is dependent to some extent on the age 
of puberty. And if the latter was the same as now, as we have 
shown, then the numbers of a people may be doubled in from ten to 

1 See Clinton, vol. i. p. 294. 



348 Biblical Interpretation. 

fifteen years. In 375 years from the flood, the population, supposing 
fifteen years to be the period of doubling, would reach two hundred 
millions. 

" The circumstances of the dispersion of mankind," as Clinton 
justly argues, " are in favour of the shorter computation of the 
Hebrew copy. That dispersion was effected by the immediate inter- 
position of providence in opposition to the inclinations of mankind, 
who desired to dwell together, and were averse to the dispersion. 
Their object was to remain collected in one city. They built the 
tower lest they should be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole 
earth. It is manifest, then, that the dispersion was commanded while 
they were yet few in number. It was directed prospectively with a 
view to prevent the evils that would arise from crowded numbers in a 
limited space. But at the time assigned to this event by the longer 
dates, more than 500 years after the flood, it is evident that this was 
no longer the condition of mankind; since their numbers would 
increase in the common progress of things to many millions, their 
dispersion would then have been no longer a matter of choice, but of 
necessity. It could not have proceeded from a divine command pro- 
viding against a future evil, but would have been forced upon them 
by the actual presence of that evil. The dispersion, then, in the 
days of Peleg, took effect at an earlier period, while the members of 
mankind were yet a few thousands ; and Peleg was born where the 
Hebrew text places him, 101 years after the flood. It is not likely 
that the numbers of mankind, when they received the command to 
separate, and prepared to inhabit one city, would exceed 50,000 
persons ; and this number they would certainly have reached within 
160 years of the flood." 1 

The early state of Canaan assumed in the argument is solely 
hypothetical. 

6. The average length of generations in the first ten patriarchs after 
the flood is shorter than in succeeding periods when the duration of 
life was shortened, whereas it should naturally be longer. Thus the 
proportion is not well adjusted in the shorter chronology. 

There is little strength in this argument. The proportions in the 
duration of generations are variable, inasmuch as they depend on 
many circumstances. They can hardly be measured by a definite 
standard. 

Looking at all the arguments which have been advanced against 
the Hebrew chronology, we are bound to confess that it possesses 
far more intrinsic probability than any of the extended schemes 
which have been proposed in place of it. 

There are various peculiarities in the reckoning found in Scripture 
which may appear at first sight to occasion difficulty. 

Thus, a part of a year, an entire year, and a part of another, i. e. 
parts of two years and a whole year, are reckoned as three years. 
The current year is reckoned as a complete year in the case of 
several kings, as Jehoshaphat (1 Kings xxii. 41.), who is said to have 

1 Fasti Hellenic!, vol. i. pp. 295, 296. 



External Circumstances. 349 

reigned 25 years, when he reigned only 24 complete. Compare also 

1 Kings xv. 9. with 25., xv. 25. with 33., xvi. 8. with xv. 33. ; 2 
Bangs xiv. 1. with xiv. 17., &c. In the same manner two parts of 
two days and one entire day are counted as three days; for our 
Saviour is said to have been three days and three nights in the heart 
of the earth. 

Fractions or smaller numbers are omitted, the principal numbers 
only being given ; or round numbers are given when others might 
be more accurate. 

Sometimes different methods of reckoning are applied to the same 
transaction. In this manner some reconcile Gen. xv. 13. with Gal. 
iii. 17. 400 years are mentioned in the former passage, dating from 
the birth of Isaac and reaching to the deliverance from Egypt; 
whereas 430 are specified in the latter, because the date is from the 
call of Abraham, and the period reaches down to the giving of the 
law at Sinai. 

Many difficulties, however, notwithstanding all the attempts that 
have been instituted to place the chronology of the Scriptures on a 
sure footing, and to elucidate the obscure parts of it, still remain. 
They will always do so, in our opinion. The kings of Judah and 
those of Israel, it is very difficult to adjust chronologically. There 
are dates in their reigns which are erroneous, as they now stand in 
the Hebrew text. And some of the methods adopted to lessen the 
difficulties are objectionable. Thus the association of son with father 
is often assumed, and then the time of the reign of each is sometimes 
made to include the time of the other, and sometimes to exclude it, 
as in the case of Jotham, who is said to have reigned 16 years, 

2 Kings xv. 33., while immediately before, his 20th year is men- 
tioned (verse 30.). This expedient has been carried to a great length 
by Seyffarth, who assumes no fewer than seven such joint-reigns in 
the kingdom of Judah, and eight in that of Israel. But there is no 
proof that any one of the children of the monarchs of Israel and Judah 
was ever associated with his father, or if he were, that the notice of 
his reign was dated from that association, and not from the actual 
death of his predecessor. Greswell 1 is right in laying it down as a 
rule, that no king's rule bears date except from the demise of his pre- 
decessor. Too much anxiety has been evinced by many on this 
subject. Mistakes are found in the text of the Bible, as is patent to 
all. After accounting for their existence, partly from the errors of 
transcribers, who in copying figures readily mistook one for another, 
the question still remains, did the inspiration of the writers secure 
their infallibility on matters of this kind. Doubtless we may suspect 
our own ignorance in many cases ; but yet we are sure that intrica- 
cies and contradictions cannot be removed without attributing a 
larger share of blame to copyists than justly belongs to them. It is 
unnecessary to be over-solicitous respecting the chronological ac- 
curacy of the writers. Chronology is no part of religious truth. 

In investigating chronology, the best method is to get the precise 

1 See his Dissertations on the Gospels, vol. iii. p. 489, second edition. 



350 Biblical Interpretation. 

date of some remarkable fact, and from it to reckon upwards or for^ 
wards as from a centre well established. Thus the destruction of 
the temple is determined both by sacred and profane testimony to 
July 587, B.C. Thence we ascend to the birth of Abraham, and 
thence upwards still to the time antecedent to the patriarch's birth. 
From the destruction of the temple, we descend, on the other hand, 
to the return from the captivity, and thence onward to the birth of 
Christ. In the New Testament we proceed in the same manner. 
The death of Herod Agrippa is the best ascertained date in the Acts 
of the Apostles, viz., 44 a.d. This date determines that of other 
events, both before and after. In like manner, the recall of Felix 
as procurator, and the arrival of Festus in his stead, is another im- 
portant event in the history of the Acts, which can nearly be deter- 
mined to A.D. 60 ; from which we proceed backwards and forwards. 
Unfortunately the date of Paul's conversion can hardly be discovered 
satisfactorily ; while the precise epoch of our Lord's birth is also 
liable to doubt, though it is the great centre-point of all history. 
Very properly, astronomy has been associated with chronology. In- 
deed this is necessary to accuracy. It tests and corrects conclusions 
obtained independently, or it assists in bringing out certain conclu- 
sions. All the most recent and best writers have applied astronomy 
to chronology, Hales, Ideler, Greswell. It was less successfully 
applied by Newton, Kennedy, and Playfair. 

Geography is divided into historical and physical, and contributes 
much to a better acquaintance with the Bible. 

The principal country is Canaan, as being the theatre of almost all 
that is recorded in the Scriptures. This therefore is of great import- 
ance to the interpreter. Its boundaries at different times, its seas, 
rivers, mountains, plains, cities, should all be distinctly and clearly 
marked. In studying its geography we must carefully attend to 
periods. At the time of the patriarchs this country was occupied by 
the Canaanites. These, however, were not the primitive inhabitants. 
Eleven tribes of such Canaanites are specified in Gen. x. 15 — 19., of 
whom the Amorites were the most powerful, and therefore they are 
put for the Canaanites generally, in Gen. xv. 16. In Exod. iii. 8., 
xxiii. 23., Deut. vii. 1. a twelfth tribe is mentioned. We are not to 
suppose that the list in Gen. x. 15 — 19. is complete, since tribes else- 
where mentioned as belonging to Palestine are not given (compare 
Gen. xv. 19., &c), neither should it be supposed that in Gen. xv. 
19 — 21., Exod. iii. 8 — 17., Canaanites alone are given. Several of 
the earlier inhabitants are here enumerated along with Canaanitish 
tribes. And it is a most erroneous view to take of the matter, that 
the eleven mentioned in Gen. x. 15 — 19. had afterward dwindled 
down to the seven specified in Gen. xv. 19 — 21. l 

The country presented a different aspect before it was entered by 
the Israelites, and subsequently. The early history of it is obscure, 
and the localities of the Canaanitish tribes by which it was possessed 
prior to the time of Joshua cannot be determined. But when the 

1 See Tuch's Commentar on Genesis xv. and x., and Winer's Realworterbuch, s. v. 
Canaaniter. 



External Circumstances. 351 

Israelites Lad gained a settlement in it, its geographical features be- 
came more distinct. Joshua divided it into twelve portions, giving 
one to each tribe, Ephraim and Manasseh being included among the 
rest. 

In the reign of Solomon the kingdom was most extensive, for then 
was fulfilled the promise made to Abraham, Gen. xv. 18. That 
monarch appointed twelve officers, who had twelve districts under 
them. See 1 Kings iv. 7., &c. 

Under Rehoboam the tribes separated, ten having revolted from 
the king, and formed a kingdom named Israel. The remaining two 
tribes, Judah and Benjamin, with some towns of Dan and Simeon, 
formed the kingdom of Judah. It is a mistake, however, to suppose 
that Israel and Judah were now for the first time contrasted with 
one another. The names were employed after Saul's death, when the 
tribe of Judah alone adhered to David crowned king over Israel, 
and the other tribes under Ishbosheth called themselves Israel. 
Israel was subverted after it had continued 254 years. At the 
downfal of Judah, which continued 387 or 388 years, another phase 
of the country appears. After the return of the Jews from captivity, 
and the rebuilding of the temple, the aspect is again changed, until 
at length it fell into the hands of the Romans, under whose dominion 
it was in the time of our Saviour, and by whom it was annexed to 
the province of Syria. It was then divided into five provinces, 
Galilee, Samaria, Judea, Peraea, and Idumea. 

To an accurate knowledge of Palestine, should be added an 
acquaintance with the neighbouring countries, as well as those 
distant ones with which the people of God came in contact. Baby- 
lonia, Assyria, Arabia, Phenicia, Egypt, Media, Persia, Asia Minor, 
Greece, Italy, Spain, the Islands of the Mediterranean, &c. present 
a wide field of research to the biblical student. 

To show the uses of historical geography, how it clears up apparent 
contradictions, solves difficulties, exhibits the meaning, propriety, and 
force of expressions and passages in the Bible, the following exam- 
ples may be given. 

The river of Egypt, the southern boundary of Palestine in its best 
and most powerful times (Num. xxxiv. 5., 2 Kings xxiv. 7., Isa. 
xxvii. 12., Josh. xv. 4.) is not the Nile, but Wady El- Arisen which 
runs into the Mediterranean, in Arabia. In 1 Chron. xiii. 5. it is 
called Shihor of Egypt ; and in Josh. xiii. 3., " Sihor which is before 
Egypt." But in Isa. xxiii. 3., Jer. ii. 18., Sihor means the Nile. 
We are disposed to think, that the expression in Gen. xv. 18., river 
of Egypt, refers to the same, though the word rendered river be there 
"in \, not ?D3, as usual. The term "iaj is elsewhere applied to small 
rivers or streams. Hales wrongly argues that the river of Egypt 
and Sichor are always equivalent, meaning the Nile. 1 

Cush is often mentioned in Scripture. Some always refer it to 
Ethiopia, as Schulthess and Gesenius; others, as Wells 2 , fall into the 

1 Chronology, vol. i. pp. 413, 414. 

2 The Geography of the Old Testament, voL i. p. 192. London, 1711. 



352 Biblical Interpretation. 

opposite extreme by affirming that it always means Arabia Petraea, 
or a part of it. The name was originally of extended and indefinite 
meaning, being applied by the dscendants of Shem to all the southerns 
known to them, viz., the inhabitants of southern or south-western 
Arabia (Yemen) and Ethiopia. Afterwards this common appella- 
tion was restricted to Ethiopia, It is easy to see that many passages 
in the Old Testament in which the inhabitants of Cush are men- 
tioned, can only refer to an African people — to the Ethiopians. And 
although we allow to Gesenius that all other passages militate no- 
thing against restricting Cush to Ethiopia ; yet Gen. x. 7., where some 
Arabian tribes are mentioned among those descended from Cush, is 
decidedly adverse. So also is Gen. ii. 13., unless it be attributed to 
mythical geography. Hab. iii. 7., and Num. xii. 1., do not present 
the objections to Ethiopia which Wells supposes. 1 

In Isa. xxi. 1. Babylonia is called the desert of the sea. It was a 
great flat plain watered by the sea, i. e., the Euphrates, as the Nile is 
also termed a sea in Isa. xix. 5. Before mounds and dikes were 
made by Semiramis, the country was often inundated by the river, 
and resembled a sea. Abydenus quotes a tradition : " It is said that 
the whole region at first was water, called a sea." 

In Psal. xlii. 6. mention is made of the Hermons, not Hermonites 
as our version has it. The plural is used because Hermon is properly 
a chain of mountains, not a single one. 

Psal. cxxxii. 6. "Lo, we heard of it at Ephratah : we found it in 
the fields of the wood." The last clause means in the fields of Jahar, 
the same as Kirjath-jearim. The ark was found in the neighbour- 
hood of the city of the woods, Forest-town. The ark was for a consi- 
derable time in Shiloh. 

Deut. i. 1. " These be the words which Moses spake unto all 
Israel on this side Jordan in the wilderness, in the plain over against 
the Bed Sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, 
and Dizahab." 

It is difficult to explain this passage. The Israelites were now in 
the plains of Moab opposite Jericho, and yet they are said to be " in 
the plain over against the Red Sea." Perhaps a solution of the 
difficulty may be gathered from a knowledge of " the plain" or rather 
the 'Arabah. This immense valley extends from Banias at the foot 
of J ebel-esh- Sheikh to the Bed Sea. The Dead Sea, situated about 
the middle of it, divides it into two parts. The Israelites were now 
in the part of the 'Arabah opposite the Bed Sea, or towards the oppo- 
site end of it. 2 

Isa. xlv. 2. " gates of brass." Both Herodotus and Abydenus 
say that Babylon had 100 such gates. The "broad walls" of the 
city (Jer. Ii. 58.) exactly agree with what Herodotus and Diodorus 
Siculus say, viz., that they were 87 feet broad and could contain six 
chariots abreast. 

Two places named Bethsaida are referred to in the Gospels. Hence 
some commentators, such as Macknight, have been perplexed in 

1 See Gesenius's Thesaurus, and Winer's Kealworterbuch, s. v. 

2 See Kobinson's Palestine, vol. ii. p. 600. 



External Circumstances. 353 

regard to the position, because they were ignorant of the existence 
of any other than one. One was in Galilee, on the shore of the Lake 
of Gennesareth, not far from Tiberias, Mark vi. 45., viii. 22. ; John 
xii. 21. The other, also termed Julias, was north-east of the same 
lake, and is referred to in Matt. xi. 21. It was in lower Gaulonitis. 
It is difficult to identify the sites of these two places, and assign to 
one or other certain events mentioned in the Gospels which took place 
in their vicinity. We do not believe that Robinson, Winer, Arnold 1 , 
or the commentators De Wette and Meyer, have cleared up the in- 
tricacies connected with them. More satisfactory is the account 
given by a writer in the Journal of Sacred Literature, whom we 
have followed. 2 

In Luke xxiv. 50. it is stated that the ascension of our Lord took 
place at or near Bethany. But in Acts i. 12. it is written that 
after the ascension " the disciples returned unto Jerusalem from the 
mount called Olivet." Here there is no contradiction. Bethany 
was connected with or a part of the Mount of Olives, Mark xi. 1. ; 
Luke xix. 29. Compare also Matt. xxi. 17. ; Mark xi. 11., xix. 
20. ; Luke xxi. 37. Luke uses Bethany and the Mount of Olives 
as nearly synonymous, because the former lies on the eastern slope 
of the mount. 

In Acts xvi 6, 7, 8., we are informed that Paul and Silas, when 
in Galatia, wished to preach the gospel in proconsular Asia, but were 
forbidden. When they had come down to the frontier of Mysia, the 
first province they reached, they were prevented from preaching 
there. They then attempted to go into Bithynia, adjacent to Mysia, 
but were likewise restrained. Accordingly they passed by it, and 
proceeded to Troas, the city of that name. Hence the Troas district 
was distinct from Mysia. At one time it may have belonged to 
Mysia ; but now it formed a separate territory, having the rights of 
Roman freedom. 

Whoever wishes to see the great utility of geography must care- 
fully trace the wanderings of the Israelites in the wilderness for 40 
years, and the several journeys of the Apostle Paul. These will 
especially teach the importance of being acquainted with it. 

Mistakes in explaining Scripture by the aid of geography are 
common. We shall give an example or two. 

In the third verse of Obadiah is a description of Edom as dwelling 
in the clefts of the rock, whose habitation is high ; as exalted like the 
eagle, and setting her nest among the stars. These words have been 
incorrectly supposed to apply to Petra, the capital city of Edom, 
whose remarkable site and ruins have been described by various tra- 
vellers, since they were first visited in modern times by Burckhardt. 
But the description refers to the country generally, which was high 
and rocky, intersected with clefts and valleys. 

In Psal. lxxxix. 13., where Tabor and Hermon are mentioned 
together, Reland and others assume another Hermon than that which 
forms a part of Lebanon — a little Hermon in the neighbourhood of 

1 In Herzog's Encyclopsed. Art. Bethsaida. 

2 No. for October 1854, p. 162. et seqq. 
VOL. II. A A 



354 Biblical Interpretation. 

Tabor. Tradition does point to Jebel ed-Duhy, mount Duhy, as the 
little Hermon ; but the tradition does not seem to have been as old 
as Eusebius ; and no mountain except one, Jebel esh-Sheikh, is 
ever called Hermon in Scripture. The context of the place does not 
require a neighbouring, but a conspicuous and notable mountain. 1 In 
Acts xvi. 13. a river is mentioned outside the gate of Philippi. This 
was the stream Gaggitas or Gangitas, not the Strymon. Yet the 
latter is specified as the river meant, by Meyer and De Wette. 2 

Physical Geography. — This includes climate, weather, seasons, &c, 
and contributes as well as historical geography to the elucidation of 
Scripture. But as it has been already treated of in the third volume 
of this work, we may here omit it, especially as examples of its appli- 
cation to the explanation of the Bible are given. 

Manners and customs. ■ — These include a great portion of what is 
termed Biblical antiquities, such as habitations, dress, food and meals, 
taxation, modes of reckoning, marriage ceremonies, &c, which have 
been already discussed. 

In like manner, natural history, including zoology, botany, 
mineralogy, geology, which belong to the third volume of the work, 
may be employed in explaining several passages. 

A knowledge of the religious opinions current among the people men- 
tioned in the sacred volume, will also assist the interpreter. The 
Israelites came in contact with various nations at different times, 
such as the Egyptians, the Canaanitish tribes, the Babylonians, 
Assyrians, Persians, and others. A knowledge of the religion of 
these may therefore assist in illustrating some places of Scripture. 

It has been usually thought that many of the ceremonial laws of 
the Hebrews, and other laws besides, have a reference to the reli- 
gious opinions, and rites of worship founded on these, that prevailed 
among the neighbouring idolatrous nations ; and that they were given 
in opposition to them. We are not disposed wholly to deny such re- 
ference. Thus in Exodus xxiii. 19. Moses prohibits the seething of a 
kid in its mother's milk. The reason of such prohibition was, because 
there was a Gentile superstition connected with this custom. The 
Zabii, in their sacred rites after harvest, were wont thus to boil a kid 
in its mother's milk, and then to sprinkle fields, trees, and gardens 
with the milk, accompanied by magic ceremonies. Thus the lawgiver 
rebukes a superstitious usage then existing. He discountenances 
the opinion that the parts sprinkled with the milk so prepared would 
be more fruitful the following year, as was believed. In like manner 
when it is said, " Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore or the 
price of a dog into the house of the Lord thy God for any vow " 
(Deut. xxiii. 18.), this language is directed against what was done in 
the worship of some gods, and was reckoned acceptable to them 
among heathen nations. We know that the Phenicians did what is 
here prohibited. 

Allusions to the opinions and worship of idolatrous nations may 

1 See Eobinson's Palestine, vol. iii. pp. 171, 172. 

2 See Conybeare and Howson on Paul's Epistles, vol. i. p. 316. On this whole section 
relating to Geography, compare Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 666. et seqq. 



External Circumstances. 355 

be discovered in Jer. xliv. 17, 18., where -worshipping the queen of 
heaven refers to the worship of the planet Venus, i. e. Astarte or 
Ashtaroth. The Hebrew women derived this worship from the 
Phenicians, and it was connected with the idea of fruitfulness. The 
queen of heaven was reverenced as the means of procuring fecundity. 

Psal. xvi. 4., " drink-oiferings of blood." Libations of human 
blood were offered to their deities by many of the idolatrous nations. 
Here the Psalmist expresses his horror or detestation of such offerings. 

Some have supposed that a Persian tenet is alluded to in Isa. 
xlv. 7. " I form light and darkness — peace and evil." The leading 
principle of Persian philosophy was dualism, or the doctrine of two 
independent coeternal causes, Light and Darkness, Ormuzd and 
Ahriman. Jehovah claims authority over them both in his prophetic 
address to Cyrus. But notwithstanding the names in favour of this 
reference we are doubtful of it. It is better to understand the lan- 
guage apart from it. It is general, and obvious of itself. 

The present source of illustration has been abused. Allusions have 
been discovered to opinions and superstitions which do not exist. 
Thus Spencer erred in finding so many references to heathen rites. 
The majority of his deductions are wholly unfounded. For example, 
there is no reason to suppose that in Exod. xii. many circumstances 
of the passover were appointed in opposition to Egyptian supersti- 
tions ; that the " eating no part raw," " not carried forth," were 
directed against what was usual in solemn festivals ; that the " no 
bone broken " alludes to being pulled asunder in enthusiasm ; that 
the " not sodden" refers to magical purposes; that the " roasted with 
fire " is opposed to roasted by the heat of the sun ; that " to be eaten 
with its purtenance " is against reserving the intestines for divina- 
tion ; and that " no part to remain, but the fragments to be burnt," 
is in opposition to being kept for charms and superstitious purposes. 

In like manner, in the choice of the heifer described in Num. 
xix. 2. &c, it is unnecessary to have recourse to Egyptian rites or 
opinions, as though that animal referred to the heifer worshipped as 
sacred to Isis, and was of a red colour as most adored. 

Of the same kind are Levit. xix. 29.; Deut. xxii. 5.; Levit. ii. 11.; 
Isa. xlv. 19. 1 Nor is Hengstenberg free from excess in the same 
direction as Spencer, though he is by no means so extravagant. 
More judicious and satisfactory is the admirable work of Selden, De 
Diis Syris. 

Ancient learning and philosophy. — At a very early period the 
Egyptians were eminent for wisdom and learning. Other eastern 
nations were also remarkable for the science they possessed, as 
the Chaldeans, Syrians, and Persians. Indeed one philosophy in 
essence appears to have prevailed throughout most of the eastern 
nations of antiquity, modified in various ways among different 
peoples. There is little doubt that the speculations of this philo- 
sophy gave origin to some of the religious opinions and rites be- 
longing to the nations attached to it; and that these again were 
copied by the Israelites, who in their intercourse with others 
1 See Rosenniuller's Scholia on these texts. 

A A 2 



3d 6 Biblical Interpretation. 

were so prone to follow what was corrupt. Such cultivated Jews 
especially as were of a speculative temperament adopted the prin- 
ciples of this philosophy, accommodating them to their own reli- 
gious doctrines. In this manner tenets of a peculiar kind were 
formed, whereby the simplicity of revealed truth was perverted. 
Abstruse points were discussed, ideas were disseminated, and doc- 
trines taught, which were remote from the common apprehension 
and derogatory to the nature of revelation. To such there are 
various references in Scripture ; and in the opinion of some, an ex- 
ample occurs in Isa. lxvi. 17., " that sanctify themselves behind one 
in the midst.'''' The supreme god, the same as Jupiter and the sun, 
was called one, and never appeared but surrounded with many aeons 
or inferior spirits, who would be worshipped along with him. But 
we much doubt the correctness of this interpretation. Simpler and 
more natural is that of Gesenius, De Wette, and Knobel. 

Many Christians who were imbued with the oriental philosophy 
brought the tenets of that philosophy into connection with the doc- 
trines of Christianity, and so corrupted the latter. Such were the 
Gnostics, who however did not appear so early as the time of the 
apostles. But the germs of their principles were then in existence. 
The seeds of Gnosticism had been sown in the apostolic age. Thus 
some supposed that Jesus had not assumed a real body, but only the 
shadow or representation of one. These persons were afterwards 
called Docetce. Against them John evidently wrote such passages 
as, i. 1, 2. ; ii. 22, 23. ; iv. 2, 3. 14, 15. ; v. 6,7, 8. of his first epistle. 

Paul refers to the Platonic-Alexandrian philosophy of Philo 
respecting the first and second Adam, in 1 Cor. xv. 

In the Acts of the Apostles we are informed that Paul en- 
countered the Epicureans and Stoics at Athens. He came in con- 
tact with Greek philosophy in the centre of Grecian refinement. 
The Epicureans admitted the existence of gods, but looked upon 
them as indolent beings who did not trouble themselves with the 
affairs or actions of men. They had no belief in a providence, in 
human responsibility, or in a future retribution. The Stoics, on the 
other hand, extolled virtue, and insisted on bringing the passions 
under reason's control, that men might become independent of the 
ordinary sources of enjoyment. In the speech delivered by the 
apostle on Mars' hill, both sects are referred to and confuted by 
implication. Not that he " alternately rebukes their errors " or 
" reveals to them the great doctrine of the atonement ; " but that in 
a most skilfully disposed and able apologetic discourse, he advances 
sentiments tending to overthrow the views of both together. 

Hammond and Burton have greatly erred in finding so many 
allusions in the New Testament to the Gnostics — a sect which did 
not exist as such, so early as the apostles. 

Coins, inscriptions, medals, and such like ancient remains, may also 
be employed as hermeneutical auxiliaries. 

The following examples will illustrate the kind of aid they afford 
in interpretation. 

Acts xix. 35. Commentators have been somewhat at a loss con- 



External Circumstances. 357 

cerning the office and functions of the jpafifiarsvs, town-clerk, of 
Ephesus. It is clear that he was a magistrate of great authority, 
occupying a public position. His original function was to register 
the public acts and laws, or to keep the record of them. He presided 
over the archives. Letters sent to the people of Ephesus were ad- 
dressed officially to him ; and it was he who read what related to the 
affairs of the city generally, before the senate and assembly. Hence 
his name often appears on the coins of Ephesus. He may be called 
the recorder of the city, rather than the toivn-clerk. That the office 
was most honourable has been inferred from a coin of Nysa in Caria, 
on which Tiberius Cassar is called ypafifiarsvs of that city. 1 Several 
coins are extant in which the same man is described as both ap^tspsus 
and jpa/xfiarsus, High-priest, scribe. This does not prove, as has been 
thought by some, that he was a sacred not a civil officer. It merely 
shows that he sometimes held a kind of sacerdotal position, probably 
from being elected Asiarch. We know that the Asiarch presided 
over the games annually celebrated at Ephesus in honour of Diana, 
and consequently occupied a sort of sacerdotal position. And that 
the same person was occasionally both ypafx/xarsvs and Asiarch, fol- 
lows from an Ephesian inscription in Boeckh. 2 

Acts x. 1. Here Cornelius the centurion is said to have be- 
longed to the Italian cohort, cr7rsipr]s 'iTaXt/cr}?. How or why an 
Italian cohort should be at Caesarea, it may not be easy to perceive ; 
because cohorts were usually levied from the country itself in which 
they were stationed. But Luke here leads us to suppose that the 
cohort consisted of native Italians. An inscription in Gruter 3 con- 
firms the accuracy of the sacred historian, from which we learn that 
volunteer Italian cohorts served in Syria. The soldiers, Italian or 
Roman, enlisted of their own accord. And as Caesarea was the resi- 
dence of the Roman procurator, it was important that he should 
have trustworthy troops precisely at that place. 

Coins and inscriptions are chiefly useful in strengthening the 
credibility of the sacred writers. They belong to the department of 
evidence rather than to that of interpretation. Or, they furnish 
illustrations of meanings already ascertained. They should not be 
unnecessarily applied, as they have been, to show that the verb 'Xp r lH' a ~ 
ri^co in Acts xi. 26. means to call by divine appointment. For in the 
first place the meaning of the verb is sufficiently obvious from its 
usage in the New Testament and Septuagint; so that it is quite 
superfluous to appeal to its occurrence on an ancient votive tablet 
found at Rome, formerly seen in the temple of Esculapius on an 
island in the Tiber, where it denotes the oracular response of a god ; 
and secondly, it means simply to name in the passage in Acts, as it 
does in Romans vii. 3., also in Josephus, Philo, and later writers. 
There is no evidence that the name Christians was first given to the 
disciples at Antioch by divine appointment or by an oracle from God. 
The heathen, either Greeks or Romans, or both, called them Chris- 
tians for the first time. 

1 See Akennann's Numismatic Illustrations of the New Testament, p. 53. 
- No. 2990. 3 Copied in Akermann's Numismatic Illustrations, p. 34, 

AA 3 



358 Biblical Interpretation. 

Bishop Miinter applied this source of illustration to the New 
Testament ; and since his time it has been employed with more effect 
by Akermann. Conybeare and Howson have also used it. 

Natural history has produced various changes in current interpre- 
tations of the Bible, and is destined in all probability to affect 
exegesis in a still more salutary way hereafter. Thus it has taught 
us to see that all animals in every part of the globe could not have 
been shut up in the ark. The number of distinct species to which 
mammalia, reptiles, insects, and animalcules can be reduced by the 
greatest possible contraction, renders it utterly impossible. The ark 
was not capacious enough to contain pairs and septuples of all the 
animals now existing on the face of the earth. Besides, animals have 
their appropriated regions to which they are adapted by nature, 
and cannot live in others. When, therefore, it is considered that 
above a thousand species of existing mammalia are known, more than 
five thousand of birds, more than two thousand of reptiles ; of insects 
an immense number, more certainly than one hundred thousand ; of 
animalcules countless millions; and that all have congenial climates; 
the impossibility of the ark holding them is obvious. Hence the 
language of the narrative must be restricted. The newly created 
animals of that region which was the cradle of the human race were 
alone brought into the ark and preserved. With this is connected 
the partial character of the deluge — not its universality. 1 

In like manner geology has affected the exegesis of Scripture. It 
has taught us to disconnect the second verse of the first chapter of 
Genesis from the first, in relation to immediate sequence of time. It 
supposes a separating interval, how long none can tell ; but long 
enough for all geological requirements. The whole account of the 
Mosaic cosmogony has received valuable illustration from this impor- 
tant science. 2 

In like manner medicine has contributed to the elucidation of the 
Bible. Thus it has explained the diseases of Job and Nebuchad- 
nezzar; has made the descriptions of leprosy more intelligible and 
obvious ; and thrown light upon the case of the diseased persons 
spoken of in the Gospels as demoniacally possessed. 

We might thus traverse the wide field of nature, science, and art, 
for the purpose of showing that every part of it illustrates and con- 
firms the biblical records. The language of the sacred writers is 
diversified. It is borrowed from every thing around them. It is 
therefore the interpreter's duty to know the objects of the eastern 
world, so interesting to the student of Scripture ; as well as the 
various manners, usages, and customs peculiar to the people or peo- 
ples described. We shall then see the adaptation of the language 
employed to set forth the religious doctrines and moral truths which 
the Bible incalcates ; the propriety of figures that may seem exag- 
gerated or uncouth ; the truth and naturalness of the representations 
given. If the sacred historians, prophets, and poets have fetched their 
descriptions from the wide domain of nature, it is the dictate of 

1 See Smith's Scripture and Geology, p. 155. et seqq. third edition. 

2 See my Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 670. et seqq. 



On Jewish Writings as Aids in Interpretation. 359 

reason to study the scenes and objects to which they refer. To obtain 
a comprehensive acquaintance with the Bible, it is needful to call in 
the aid of all science, natural and moral. 

We have reserved the opinions of Jewish writers for a separate 
chapter ; though they might have been introduced under several of 
the heads just described. 



CHAP. XV. 

ON JEWISH WRITINGS AS AIDS IN THE INTERPRETATION OP SCRIPTURE. 

We have already alluded to the Jewish writings as sources of illus- 
trating the usus loquendi of the Scriptures. They serve to explain 
the grammatical force and meaning of words, and so contribute to 
what has been termed grammatical interpretation. But they may be 
legitimately employed in interpretation generally ; in throwing light 
on the facts of Scripture, on opinions, manners, and customs alluded 
to there. 

Among these Jewish writings we may refer first to the Apocryphal 
books as the oldest. These works form a valuable and important 
link of connection between the Old and New Testaments. Having 
been written by Jews, though not in general Palestinian ones, they 
show their manner of thinking, sentiments, and usages in a variety 
of aspects. They reflect the tone and spirit of Alexandrian Judaism 
after the completion of the Old Testament canon and before the 
coming of Messiah. We join with those scholars who regret the 
disuse into which these writings have fallen in many quarters; 
especially among those churches which draw a wide and strict line of 
separation between them and the Old Testament books from a con- 
viction that the one collection is inspired, the other not so. For 
even when this position of inferiority is conceded, no reason neces- 
sarily arises out of it why the Apocryphal books should be neglected 
and despised. They contain Jewish history, ethical philosophy, 
dogmatic precepts, didactic and practical lessons, deserving of atten- 
tive and frequent perusal. They have even affected the tone and 
form of various places in the New Testament ; for it is undeniable 
that several of the sacred writers were acquainted with them and 
exhibit the influence they had upon their teachings. As documents 
bearing on the history, philosophy, and dogmatics of the Alexandrian 
Jews, they appear to us very valuable. The Jewish mind as in- 
fluenced by Alexandrian and other causes is seen in them. Accord- 
ingly these books have supplied many illustrations of the New 
Testament to commentators like Kuinoel, and to lexicographers 
like Bretschneider. Of the Targums or Jewish paraphrases we have 
already spoken under the head of versions. We regard them as less 
valuable than the Apocryphal books, in the province of interpreta- 
tion. Yet they are not without their use, specially in elucidating the 
Hebrew usus loquendi. 



360 Biblical Interpretation. 

As to the Talmud, consisting of two parts viz. the Mishna or text 
and Gemara or commentary, its contents are multifarious, and need 
not be described here. The Babylonian Talmud, i. e. the Mishna 
with the Gemara of Babylon, is most esteemed. The Jerusalem 
Talmud, consisting of the same text, but with another Gemara, is in 
much less repute. This great work is useful for the illustration of 
manners and customs mentioned or referred to in the Scriptures. 
Passages from the Old Testament are also cited and commented on 
in it after the manner of the Jews. It would be idle to deny that 
the Talmud contains many things which contribute to a better 
acquaintance with the Old and New Testaments. The traditions of 
the Jews which it embodies, some of them reaching up to a period 
prior to the advent of the Saviour, are founded in part on the cano- 
nical books. They exhibits the workings of many Jewish minds 
upon the revealed Scriptures, showing how the letter was inter- 
preted, evaded, overridden, arbitrarily used, that a certain meaning 
might be brought forth. Piety and superstition are both apparent. 
The Mishna is of much greater utility than the Gemara. It is older 
and less trifling. Hence it has been much more applied to Scripture 
illustration than the other. 

A few examples may be given. 

" Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and 
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of 
heaven." (Matt. v. 19.) 

Our Saviour did not refer to the commandments of the ceremonial 
but the moral law. How then could he call the latter least com- 
mandments? He spoke according to the sense of his hearers, not 
according to his own mind. His hearers had been taught to speak 
so of the moral precepts of the law. And in the words there is a 
latent allusion to something that had been said before. 

" Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and then remem- 
berest that thy brother hath ought against thee ; leave there thy gift 
before the altar and go thy way ; first be reconciled to thy brother, 
and then come and offer thy gift." (Matt. v. 23, 24.) 

Here some law or custom is referred to which is not explained in 
the Bible. What the gift is, and what the altar, we cannot learn from 
the context. But in the Talmud there are certain doctrines and 
observances of the Jews which being well known to them the 
Saviour left to be understood. The Hebrew lawyers speak much of 
the causes which may justify a man in putting off the offering he was 
about to present at the altar. These are principally some blemish in 
the sacrifice, or some uncleanness in the votary. But the Speaker 
tells his hearers of another cause unnoticed by the lawyers, viz. that 
if a person recollects not merely any uncleanness or outward disqua- 
lification in himself, but that his brother hath ought against him, he 
is to delay his sacrifice till reconciliation be made. 1 

" Render therefore unto Csesar the things which are Caesar's ; and 
unto God the things which are God's." (Matt. xxii. 21.) 

1 See Lightfoot's Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations upon St. Matthew, vol. xi. 
p. 110. et seqq. of his collected works by Pitman. 



On Jewish Writings as Aids in Interpretation. 361 

" The calmness and dignity of our Saviour's answer has been often 
remarked, but its full and exact significance cannot be collected from 
the words of St. Matthew. In his reply our Lord evaded the di- 
lemma on which the Pharisees had hoped to fix him ; but according 
to our notions it contained no answer, either direct or indirect, to 
the question proposed; for the common currency of a coin with 
Caesar's head and name upon it was no proof, as we should think, of 
his lawful claim to tribute. But, as addressed to the Pharisees, our 
Lord's words had a signification which they do not immediately 
convey to our minds. Lightfoot tells us that it was one among the 
determinations in their schools, that ' wheresoever the money of any 
kind is current, there the inhabitants acknowledge that king for 
their Lord. Hence is that passage of the Jerus. Sanhedr. r. : 
Abigail said to David, What evil have I done, or my sons, or my cattle? 
He answered, Your husband vilifies my kingdom. Are you then a king ? 
to which he replied, Did not Samuel anoint me for a king? She 
replied, The money of our Lord Saul is current ; that is, Is not Saul 
to be accounted king, while his money is still received commonly 
by us all?' It would seem, therefore, that our Saviour, in his reply 
to the Pharisees, not only turned aside the snare which was laid for 
him, but made it dangerous for them to attempt any rejoinder, lest 
they should fall into the difficulty they had prepared for him." 1 

Next to the Talmud may be mentioned the writers of Rabboth or 
commentaries on the five books of Moses, to which are subjoined the 
Megilloth. The Midrashitic writings, containing allegorical interpre- 
tations of several books in the Old Testament, are of less value than 
the Rabboth. Besides these, we have the Jewish books called Siphra, 
Siphri, and Mechilta, exhibiting something of the nature of a com- 
mentary on Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and some chapters 
of Exodus, respectively. 2 

The book called Sohar may be also mentioned here, which is a 
cabbalistic commentary on the Pentateuch, but containing discussions 
respecting the Deity, his essence, attributes, and names ; respecting 
the Messiah ; good and bad angels ; the nature of man, his origin, 
his condition; with practical and ritual matters. Some Jews as- 
cribe the book to B. Simeon Ben Jochai, who lived at the commence- 
ment of the second century ; while others attribute its composition 
to his disciples. All of it seems to be of later origin than R. Simeon's 
time. Different writers at different times have contributed to it. 
It is a piece of patchwork, many portions being later than the 
Talmud and the Masoretic age. Hence the value of the work is 
inconsiderable. In interpretation it is of little use. In various cases 
it may be advantageously employed to show what was thought by 
the Jews of former times respecting passages in the Pentateuch 
relating to the Messiah and his person ; but these are merely in- 
cidental things, as the general subject is neither the coming of 
the Messiah, nor the events foretold concerning his reign, nor any 

1 Lyall's Preparation of Prophecy, pp. 80, 81. second edition. 

2 See "Wolrli Bibliotheca Hebrcea, vol. ii. 



362 Biblical Interpretation. 

single topic. Being a cabbalistic commentary on the Pentateuch, it 
treats of many particulars as they occur. 1 

The chief English commentators who have applied the Talmud 
and other Jewish writings to the elucidation of the Old Testament 
are Ainsworth in his notes on the Pentateuch, Gill and A. Clarke 
on all the books. In the New Testament, the last two have also 
applied them extensively. Wetstein has supplied many illustrations 
from the same sources. But they have been more used by Light- 
foot, Schoettgen, and Meuschen. The works of the two Cappells 2 , 
with the Myroihecium Evangelicum of Cameron, are of less extent, 
but written with the same object. And Koppe in his edition of 
the New Testament has made a good selection from all preceding 
writers. 

There can be little doubt that these Jewish writings have been too 
extensively applied to the interpretation of the Scriptures generally. 
This holds good especially in the case of Gill and Lightfoot, who 
with immense erudition heaped up passages from their favourite 
authors. Yet we cannot avoid thinking that much of their time and 
labour was wasted on these Rabbinical lucubrations. Very often 
illustrations derived from Jewish sources and applied by these two 
scholars are useless lumber. It is quite unnecessary to resort to 
them when the sense can be ascertained by other means. Where 
the context or parallels are sufficient aids in eliciting the sense, it is 
superfluous to apply to Jewish writers. Amnion has laid it down 
as a rule, that in the New Testament wherever religious rites 
are treated of, as well as forms of teaching and prayer, illustrations 
may be found in the Jewish writers. 3 But a rule of this nature 
is of little use. It is not sufficiently exact or precise. And we 
gravely suspect, that the propounder himself would employ it very 
injuriously to the true sense when he affirms, " that St. Paul in the 
Epistle to the Romans often writes as might be expected from a 
scholar of Gamaliel." It is better to refrain from Jewish authors 
except when they are absolutely needed ; and cases of necessity must 
be judged separately, as they occur. Perhaps the following admoni- 
tions may be useful on the point before us. 

{a.) Where there is no written narrative in the Old Testament re- 
specting historical matters, but merely a tradition handed down 
orally, there Jewish writers may be profitably consulted. Thus 
Paul, speaking of the magicians of Pharaoh, gives the names Jannes 
and Jambres, which are not in the Mosaic but in Jewish books. So 
too Luke states, that there was no rain in the time of Elias for three 
years and six months. This number does not appear in the Books of 
Kings. And in the speech of Stephen there are several particulars 
derived from tradition. 

(b.) We must refer to these sources where no other historical 
sources of rites mentioned in Scripture exist. Various rites after- 

1 See Wolfii Bibliotheca Hebrsea, vol. i. p. 1134. et seqq. 

2 Observationes in N. T., by James Cappellus, edited after his death by Lewis Cappell, 
to which he subjoined his own Spicilegium Notarum in N. T., 1657. 

3 See Notes to Er nesti, vol. ii. p. 1 80., Terrot's translation. 



On Jewish Writings as Aids in Interpretation. 363 

wards practised are not prescribed in the law of Moses. They are of 
later origin. These can be learned only from Jewish books. Of this 
nature were several particulars relating to the sanhedrim, the syna- 
gogue, and the conduct of private life. 

(c.) Wherever it can be clearly shown that the manner of teaching 
and argumentation used by the New Testament writers is analogous 
to that of Jewish authors, the latter may be used for illustration. An 
example occurs in Matt. xxii. 31., where the doctrine of the resurrec- 
tion is proved from a passage in the Mosaic law. 

In like manner, the form of many citations from the Old Testa- 
ment in the New resembles that used by Jewish writers, as Suren- 
husius and Doepke have abundantly shown. 

Great care must be taken in applying Jewish writers to the ex- 
planations of certain subjects. If they belong to a more recent period 
they must not be adopted as expositors of passages in fhe Old Testa- 
ment, for they are frequently fanciful, allegorical, cabbalistic, and 
minutely etymological. Nor can they be trusted where they expound 
the doctrines of revealed religion. There they are wont to mix up 
their own opinions with the statements of Scripture, so that rabbinical 
rather than biblical teachings are evolved. 1 

How far the matter of the New Testament is to be pronounced 
distinctively Jewish, inasmuch as the writers were Jews, or whether 
it is to be regarded in any sense as such, is a question exceedingly 
difficult to answer. It is certain that the form of the New Testament 
teachings must be resolved, in many cases, into the Jewish origin and 
mental habitudes of the writer. Modes of reasoning and proof are 
often Jewish. And we are disposed to think that the matter was 
sometimes owing to the same fact, and adapted to the Jewish mind. 
But it is impossible to tell how far this accommodation extends. 
Certainly not so far as Semler and his followers supposed. In 
their hands, the New Testament was made essentially a Jewish 
book — a Jewish appendix to the Old Testament, rather than a dis- 
tinct, clearer, higher, more spiritual revelation, of universal import 
and utility. That was a dangerous excess into which Semler ran. 
We must not merge the character of the New Testament teachings 
in a meagre thing like this, else their genius will be misapprehended 
and destroyed. 

We have reserved the works of two learned Jews for a separate 
paragraph, because they differ materially from the talmudical and 
rabbinical writings. Philo and Josephus are more valuable than 
other authors of their nation. Their works throw more light on the 
manners, customs, and opinions of their countrymen. 

We need not state here such particulars as are known respecting 
the life of Philo, especially as they are few and uncertain. We 
know that he was an Alexandrian Jew, well acquainted with the Old 
Testament in the Septuagint version, though entirely ignorant of it 
in the original Hebrew, as Frankel has shown. 2 We know that he 
was of a philosophical cast of mind, and eloquent withal, but at the 

1 See Mori Acroases, vol. ii. p. 174. et seqq. 

2 Vorstudien zu den Septuaginta. 



364 Biblical Interpretation. 

same time mystical, ingenious, fanciful, allegorical in his comments 
and influences. Imbued with the Platonism then current among the 
cultivated men of Alexandria, he endeavoured to penetrate beneath 
the letter to the spirit of the Old Testament. On this account, he is 
useful in illustrating various parts of the Pauline Epistles ; for it is 
apparent that the Apostle of the Gentiles sometimes reasons in a 
manner similar to Philo's allegorical method. In the case of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, he has been often employed towards the elu- 
cidation of it. That Epistle presents more analogy to his writings 
than any other part of the New Testament. What has attracted 
most notice in Philo is his doctrine of the Logos, which bears much 
resemblance to that of the Apostle John. So close indeed is the 
likeness, that many eminent commentators assume the influence of 
Philo's Logos-doctrine on that of John. Others, however, deny the 
assumption. The passages of Philo relating to the Logos were in- 
dustriously collected long ago by Bryant. 1 Since his day, most of 
these passages have been reproduced by Pye Smith. 2 His doc- 
trines have also been elucidated by Grossmann. 3 But these at- 
tempts are superficial and unsatisfactory, leading to no definite or 
certain result. Recourse must be had to the more extended treatises 
of Gfrorer 4 and Daehne 5 ; to the introductions to the commentaries 
of Liicke and Tholuck on John ; to Dorner's admirable remarks 6 ; 
and to those of De Wette at the commencement of John's Gospel. 
We believe that the writings of Philo are more useful in elucidating 
the opinions of the Jews than their customs. As he has many 
quotations from the Old Testament we see how he understood 
many passages in it. Even in explanation of the New Testament he 
may be usefully applied. Thus it has been supposed, not without 
reason, that the remarks of Paul upon the earthy man and the 
heavenly man in 1 Cor. xv. 44 — 47. were written with relation to 
Philo's doctrine, and in refutation of it. The passage in the first 
Epistle to the Corinthians is very similar to one in Philo's De 
Allegor. Leg. i. 12, 13., where the Jewish-Platonic writer comments 
on Gen. ii. 7. According to the latter, the heavenly man is the 
archetypal man, incorporeal, immortal, the ideal denizen of the ideal 
world ; the earthy man or Adam being only the prototype and 
ignoble representation of him. The heavenly man abounded with 
the divine spirit ; but the earthy man, created with a mortal body, 
had only a faint breath of the immortalising and vivifying spirit, 
which being added constituted him a living soul. 

Now the earthy man or Adam of the apostle is identical with the 
earthy man in Philo's phraseology. In describing his body, both 
agree. It was created. But Philo's heavenly man differs from Paul's. 

1 " The sentiments of Philo-Judasus concerning the A070? or Word of God, together 
with large extracts from his writings, compared with the Scriptures on many other par- 
ticular and essential doctrines of the Christian religion." 1776. 

2 Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, vol. i. p. 364. et seqq., fourth edition. 

3 Qusestiones Philonese* 1829. 

4 Philo und die jiidisch-alexandrin. Theosophie, 1835. 

5 Geschichtliche Darstellung der jiidisch-alexandrinischen Religions-Philogophie, 1834. 
s Entwiekelungsgescliiehte der Lehre von der Person Christi, vol. i. 1839. 



On Jewish Writings as Aids in Interpretation. 365 

The former is a mere Platonic idea existing in the Word or Reason 
of God, having no individual existence. The latter is the true per- 
sonal Logos, the pattern after which all heavenly men should be 
moulded. When the apostle directly affirms that " that was not first 
which was spiritual, but that which was natural : afterwards that 
which was spiritual," he seems directly to oppose the doctrine of 
Philo, who supposes that the heavenly man, the generic pattern of 
the earthy race, was formed first of all. 

The coincidence between the language of both writers is very 
striking. They agree too in sentiment up to a certain point. But 
in regard to the order in which the two men were produced, as well 
as the nature of the heavenly man, the apostle directly refutes Philo. 
In consequence of this coincidence, and at the same time express re- 
futation of the one writer by the other, it is probable that the apostle 
had in view the passage of Philo. This is more likely than that 
both drew their phraseology from a common source. 1 

Wetstein long ago thought that Paul saw the writings of Philo, a 
supposition involving nothing extravagant. Whether the author of 
the Epistle to the Hebrews saw them is a question connected with 
the authorship of that Epistle. A compendious view of the passages 
in Philo applicable to the illustration of the New Testament is given 
in Dahl's Christomathy. 2 This is better than the collection of terms 
and doctrines in Clarke's commentary on the New Testament, at 
the end of the first chapter in John's Gospel. 

The writings of Josephus are better known than those of Philo, 
his elder contemporary. They also contribute more to the elucida- 
tion of Scripture. He mentions many customs and rites belonging 
to the Jews. He describes the sects that prevailed among his coun- 
trymen. We learn much from him respecting the civil and religious 
condition of the Jews at the time of Christ. He describes, with 
the graphic minuteness of an eyewitness, the Jewish war and siege of 
Jerusalem, thus furnishing interesting matter to show the fulfilment 
of our Saviour's prediction respecting the destruction of the metro- 
polis of Judea. It is therefore impossible for the interpreter to 
neglect the writings of Josephus without detriment. We have 
already seen that his diction does not throw much light on that of 
the Greek Testament, because it is formed on classical models. 
But with respect to rites and customs, as well as the history of his 
own times, he possesses authority and value. Where his credit is 
chiefly vulnerable is in his representations of ancient Jewish history. 
The purpose with which he wrote his Antiquities led, in this instance, 
to a one-sided picture of his ancestors « — a picture by no means 
accurate or complete. It was intended for the Romans, and there- 
fore he made it as favourable as he could. 

It has been justly remarked by Ernesti 3 , that the authority of the 
Rabbins should not be preferred when it contradicts that of Philo 
and Josephus. The latter authorities are earlier and more learned 

1 See !Mr. Babington in the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, No. 1. p. 47. 
et seqq. 

2 Chrestomathia Philoniana, 1800. 3 Vol. ii. p. 182, English translation. 



366 Biblical Interpretation. 

than the former. When the temple, or the religious rites connected 
with it, are under examination — when the passover or the holy places 
are under review — a higher degree of credit should be given to those 
who saw and took a share in these things, than to those who lived 
after the temple was destroyed, and the rites connected with it laid 
aside. As an instance of discrepancy between the two authorities, 
take the paschal lamb, which, according to the Talmudists, was sacri- 
ficed by the priests ; whereas Philo asserts that the sacrifice was 
performed by each father of a family. There is one drawback to the 
credit of Philo even in relation to Hebrew customs and manners, viz., 
that his accuracy cannot be relied upon when he describes such as 
were ancient. Regarding the old Hebrew rites he cannot be trusted 
implicitly. But of the later Jewish usages and opinions he may be 
considered a faithful narrator. Probably where he is inaccurate in 
the matter of rites and customs, he did not know the truth. Many 
mistakes are owing to ignorance, not to misrepresentation. Those 
critics who lay much stress on his sentiments are hardly aware of the 
extent of his ignorance, and the self-sufficient ideas he entertained re- 
specting his own inspiration. Eclectic philosophy made him less 
solicitous about such things as a strict Pharisee would dwell upon. 



CHAP. XVI. 

OF THE ASSISTANCE TO BE DERIVED FROM THE WRITINGS OF THE GREEK 
FATHERS IN THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 

It is unnecessary to examine on the present occasion who are meant 
by the fathers of the Christian Church. Who are to be accounted 
such, and who are not, cannot be exactly settled because of the 
indeterminate nature of the question itself. We may include all 
the theological writers belonging to the first six centuries ; or we 
may terminate the list with Theophylact in the eleventh century. 
Perhaps it is more appropriate to confine the appellation to such as 
flourished till the close of the sixth century, at which time learning 
and religion grievously degenerated. 

The authority which should rightly be attached to the works of 
the fathers of the Christian Church has been very variously esti- 
mated. While they need not be depreciated unduly, neither need 
they be excessively extolled. A just medium should be observed. 
Taking them as a body of interpreters, we cannot place them in a 
high rank. They had learning, piety, and zeal. They did much to 
recommend the truth to the acceptance of others. But their learning 
was by no means extensive, accurate, or profound. It was superficial 
and shallow. They did not understand the Scriptures in their ori- 
ginal languages. With a very few exceptions, they were ignorant 
of Hebrew. Hence they were compelled to rely on the Greek ver- 
sion of the Old Testament, which, being by no means a good one, 



The Greek Fathers as Aids in Interpretation. 367 

failed to represent, in many instances, the true meaning of the 
original. Inaccurate as this version is, they assigned an inordinate 
value to it, as though it were an equivalent substitute for the original. 
Besides the defectiveness of their learning, we cannot commend their 
judgment and skill as interpreters. Both qualities are necessary to a 
successful expositor ; and both they certainly did not possess in any 
considerable degree. In short, they were zealous preachers rather 
than able expounders of the word. 

Yet they are valuable in some respects. They state facts con- 
nected with Christian antiquity, which may be received on their 
testimony without gainsaying. They show what views of Christian 
doctrine were commonly entertained in their day. Current opinions 
in the Catholic church they report faithfully. We learn from them 
what was commonly believed among the orthodox Christians of an- 
tiquity. They explain customs and practices founded upon or deve- 
loped out of the Bible, which it cannot but be useful to know. 
In expounding the New Testament, the Greek fathers appear to most 
advantage, because they were familiar with the Greek language. 
A few of them may even be termed good interpreters of the NeAv 
Testament. Where they are less reliable is in the region of polemics. 
When giving the sentiments of opponents, they must be read with 
caution ; for it is beyond a doubt that they had too warm an imagina- 
tion to weigh calmly and state impartially the views of adversaries. 
Little points were magnified by them ; persons who differed from 
them Avere too readily reviled or excommunicated. They were not 
fair controversialists, generally speaking. They wanted calmness, 
judiciousness, philosophy, logic, a profound love of the truth; quali- 
ties necessary to the unprejudiced disputant. Hence in speaking of 
heretics, they cannot be safely followed. The great fault of their in- 
terpretation is the allegorising method they were so prone to follow. 
Giving scope to an active fancy, or carried away by the spirit of a 
speculative philosophy, they ran into excess in regard to prophecies 
and types, parables and comparisons. Yet with all the serious draw- 
backs which their works present, there is much to interest and in- 
struct the men of after times in these very writings. Christian 
curiosity is naturally excited to know the meaning which the genera- 
tion immediately following the apostles and evangelists attached 
to their inspired writings. We desire to learn what men who con- 
versed with some of the apostles or their immediate followers thought 
of the great Christian verities revealed for the salvation of the human 
race. What sense the early fathers put upon parts and passages 
of the sacred books, is a question which every student of Scripture 
is likely to ask. Surely they were in a position to know the leading 
doctrines of the Bible as well as modern interpreters, if not in some 
respects better than they. Surely their writings as a whole will 
afford some clear idea of what they thought about Christ's person, 
mission, and work, in relation to the divine purpose and the interests 
of mankind. Accordingly it is commonly observed that Christians 
of all sects have wished to get the fathers on their side. Weight has 
been attached to their testimony on many important points by almost 



368 Biblical Interpretation. 

every denomination. Few have ventured to despise and neglect their 
verdict, except those who have reason to believe that the verdict is 
adverse to them. The importance of studying the fathers is enhanced 
in our view by the fact, that the germ alone of certain primary truths 
is contained in the Bible, to be developed thereafter by the spiritual 
intelligence and consciousness of the true church. The New Testa- 
ment contains Christian doctrine and duty in essence, but they are 
not fully developed there. Believers, penetrated by the Spirit of 
Christ, were to unfold them by degrees, in proportion to their attain- 
ments in the divine life and knowledge. Those who have studied 
such a work as that of Dorner on the person in Christ, will readily 
perceive the full force of this observation. 

In another book 1 we have largely examined all the leading 
fathers as interpreters of the Bible, giving numerous specimens of 
their exegesis. There the merits of each have been discussed and 
settled. It has been made to appear, that Origen and Jerome, 
Chrysostom and Theodoret, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Augustine 
were the best interpreters ; to whom Diodore of Tarsus should be 
added, were not his writings unfortunately lost. 

But there is a value in the works of such fathers as are not pro- 
fessed commentators. Incidental notices may illustrate Scripture 
equally with more formal expositions. Especially may they throw 
light on doctrines and duties, by exhibiting the view taken of them 
at an early period. Interpretations of passages will accordingly be dis- 
covered in several of the ante-Nicene fathers, which are most import- 
ant in a doctrinal aspect. Such interpretations have been collected 
from the writings of Barnabas (so called), Clement of Borne, Igna- 
tius, Irenasus, Justin Martyr, and others, by Burton ; with the view 
of setting forth the general evidence of the early fathers on the 
divinity of Christ. The same learned writer has followed a similar 
course in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of 
the Holy Ghost. The following examples of interpretation are 
given from him. 

" Diognetus had asked Justin to solve some doubts and difficulties 
which he entertained concerning Christianity. In compliance with 
his request, Justin wrote this letter; and speaking of the special 
revelation of his will, which God had made to Christians, he says, 
" This is no earthly invention which has been handed down to them, 
neither is it a mortal notion which they are bent on observing so 
carefully, nor have they a system of human mysteries committed to 
them : but the omnipotent and all-creative and invisible God hath 
Himself from heaven established the truth amongst men, and the 
holy and incomprehensible word, and rooted it in their hearts : not, 
as you might suppose, by sending to men any of his servants, either 
an angel, or a prince, or one of those who administer the affairs of 
earth, or one of those who have the management of heavenly things 
entrusted to them, but the Framer and Creator of the Universe, 
himself, by whom He created the heavens, by whom He shut up the 
sea in its own bounds." 

1 Sacred Hermeneutics, 1843. 



The Greek Fathers as Aids in Interpretation. 3G9 

We have here an express declaration that Jesus Christ was the 
Framer and Creator of the worlds. God created them by Jesus 
Christ, as is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews i. 2. ; and if the 
words quoted above are not sufficiently strong to exclude the idea of 
God having employed any subordinate agent, we find in the very 
next chapter the expression of " God the Lord and Creator of the 
Universe, who made all things and arranged them in order." Thus 
according to Justin's own words, God created the worlds by His 
Son ; and His Son, by whom he created them, was God.*' 1 

The Epistle to Diognetus was not written by Justin, as is here 
assumed ; but it was written at an early period notwithstanding. 

Another example adduced by Burton to show that the doctrine of 
the Trinity was believed by the ante-Nicene fathers is given from 
Clemens Alexandrinus. That ancient writer breaks out into the 
following exclamation : " O mysterious wonder \ The Universal 
Father is one ; the Universal Word also is one ; and the Holy Spirit 
is one, and this same Spirit is every where." Beside the testimony 
here borne to the doctrine of a Trinity," says Burton, " the reader 
will observe, that ubiquity is ascribed to the Holy Spirit." 2 

These examples will serve as a specimen of the manner in which 
the learned writer lays the early fathers under contribution towards 
proving such important doctrines as those already mentioned. Their 
mode of interpreting certain passages shows what their belief was 
respecting the distinctions in the Godhead. But without wishing 
to lessen the weight of Burton's method of proof, we cannot help 
thinking that it is liable to exception, in certain aspects of it. 
Like his illustrious predecessors in the same department, Water- 
land and Bull, he has given a one-sided view. This is an unavoid- 
able result of the polemic purpose he had before him. The ante- 
Nicene fathers unquestionably believed in the divinity of Christ 
and in the Trinity ; but they do not seem to have had precise or 
definite notions on the subject, like such as prevailed among the 
orthodox after the Nicene council. It is subjecting these early 
fathers to undue pressure, when the formal and metaphysical dis- 
tinctions which became current afterwards are extracted from their 
incidental notices. Our modern ideas of Christ's divinity, and of the 
Trinity, shaped as they have been to a large extent by Athanasian 
formularies antagonistic to Arianism, should not be assigned to these 
ante-Nicene authors. Bull, Waterland, and Burton do this to some 
extent ; and so far their treatises are neither comprehensive enough, 
nor exhaustive. The true method has been followed by Dorner, 
whose work constitutes an era in the treatment of the doctrine re- 
specting Christ's person. 

An example of a different kind to the preceding we take from 
Epiphanius 3 and Tertullian 4 , who informs us that the Cerinthians 

1 See Testimonies of the ante-Nicene Fathers to the Divinity of Christ, p. 53. et seqq. ia 
Theological Works, vol. u. 

- Ibid. p. 54. in Testimonies of the ante-Nicene Fathers to the Trinity 

3 Hreres. xxviii. 7. 

4 De Resurrectione, 48. and Advers. Marcion. v. 10. 

VOL. II. B B 



370 Biblical Interpretation. 

and Marcionites had a practice among them of allowing Christians to 
be baptized in the room of such as had died unbaptized, in order that 
the latter might become partakers of the resurrection and eternal life. 
It would appear that the practice was earlier than the Cerinthians ; 
since Paul refers to it in the first Epistle to the Corinthians xv. 29. ; 
" else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, &c." The 
apostle uses the argumentum ad hominem; and in appealing to a cer- 
tain belief does not think it necessary to his purpose to censure it, 
which in other circumstances he would undoubtedly have done. 
Tregelles's alteration of the common punctuation, for the purpose of 
bringing out another meaning, appears to us unnatural. 1 

There are two extremes in relation to the subsidiary sources of 
knowledge we have been referring to, which appear to be equally 
erroneous. One is to consider every thing as interpreted by the 
Bible itself, and so to reject all illustration from other sources. The 
other is that of trusting too much to the light which these may 
throw upon it. In the former case, the Bible is unduly exalted ; in 
the latter, it is unjustly depreciated. In the one, every thing enun- 
ciated is supposed to be fresh, new, original, divine ; in the other, 
old things are also reasserted and explained. Great havoc has been 
made by the latter, in the hands of the Rationalist party ; for by 
means of it the Bible is divested of its supernatural character. When 
all illustrations of the divine Book are sought outside of itself, it sinks 
down to the level of contemporary records. Jesus and his apostles 
become Jews, more enlightened perhaps than others of their day, 
but still Jews, resembling the men of their generation in many 
respects, and speaking like them to a great extent, as they uttered 
sentiments in current language adapted to the apprehension of the 
people. All this is a most deplorable depreciation of the Scriptures 
and of Him who inspired the writers. Yet with all such perversion, 
we should not be justified in rejecting the aid afforded by the 
sources in question. All contribute to cast some light on the sacred 
text. Many passages are either unintelligible, or dimly appre- 
hended, without them. The sermon on the mount, for example, 
is but imperfectly understood without a knowledge of the Jewish 
opinions, proverbs, and practices current at the time when it was 
delivered, and which it was intended in a great degree to coun- 
teract. Our Saviour took the texts of the old law in the narrow 
interpretations within which Scribes and Pharisees had confined 
them, put them in a new and broad light suited to the spirit of the 
dispensation he came to found, and amended familiar phrases current 
among the teachers of the people by putting into them a higher and 
spiritual significance. He gave a peculiar turn and beauty to pro- 
verbial expressions, which riveted the attention and secured the con- 
fidence of the people. 2 

1 See Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament, pp. 216, 217. 

2 See Wiseman's Essays on various subjects, vol. i. p. 114. et seqq. 



Limitations and Cautions. 371 

CHAP. XVII. 

LIMITATIONS AND CAUTIONS IN THE EXEGESIS OF TUE BIBLE. 

In connection with the objects of natural scienee, such as astro- 
nomy, geology, botany, natural history, physiology, and the like, 
it ought to be observed, 

1. That they are described or touched upon popularly, not ac- 
cording to scientific accuracy. The language employed in speaking 
of them must be viewed in the light of that knowledge of them 
which prevailed at the time. It is founded upon and consonant with 
the ideas which men then entertained — to the rude, imperfect, and 
probably erroneous conceptions formerly held. " If it was not 
unworthy," says an estimable writer, " of the Adorable Majesty 
of God to permit Himself to be described in terms infinitely beneath 
him, and which require our watchfulness and pious care, lest we 
take up with conceptions far remote from the spirituality of the 
Divine Nature and the purity of Christian worship, MUCH MORE 
may it be regarded as consonant with the honour of his word that 
its references to natural objects should be, in the character of thought 
and expression, such as comported with the knoioledye of the age in 
which they were delivered." x 

The principle in question is simply an accommodation to the in- 
fantine knowledge of God's rational creatures, without which certain 
parts of Scripture would have conveyed no information to the per- 
sons to whom they were first addressed. It is an adaptation to 
crude or incorrect conceptions. 

Agreeably to this method of representation, the clouds are called 
the bottles or vessels of heaven, which are emptied when rain descends. 
In like manner the foundations and corner-stone of the earth are 
spoken of. The pillars of the earth are also mentioned (comp. 
Job xxxviii. 37. 6., ix. 6.). The earth was thought to be an ex- 
tended plane. The firmament was supposed to be a solid, concave 
hemisphere, in which the stars were fixed as lamps. It contained 
openings (windows, Gen. viii. 2. ; Isa. xxiv. 18.), which were opened 
or closed as occasion demanded. Hence the appellation firmament, 
in the LXX. arspsco/xa. 2 

We are aware that Turner has objected to this explanation, 
conceiving that all this kind of language is satisfactorily accounted 
for by the principle that the Hebrews, employing popular language, 
spoke of things as they appear, rather than as they are, just as we 
do ourselves ; and by the fact that such imagery is poetic. 3 In a 
like strain Alexander attempts to answer Gesenius and Knobel 
attributing to the early Hebrews the opinion that there were win- 
dows in the solid vault of heaven. " In the same way," says he, 
K it might be proved that Milton held the stars and planets to be 

1 Dr. Pye Smith's Scripture and Geology, p. 268, third edition. 

2 See Gesenius's Thesaurus, s. v. J?*j?"}. 

* Companion to the Book of Genesis, p. 172. 



372 Biblical Interpretation. 

burning lamps, and that Gesenius himself, when he speaks of a 
column of smoke, means a solid piece of masonry. It seems to be a 
canon with some critics, that all the prosaic language of the Bible 
is to be interpreted as poetry, and all its poetry as prose." 1 But 
neither of the facts here mentioned, nor both together, suffices to 
explain the use of the diction referred to. Possibly the expressions 
quoted from the book of Job may be accounted for on the hypo- 
thesis of poetic ornament. But the word firmament, and the lan- 
guage associated with it, are in plain prose. They cannot be re- 
solved into poetic imagery, for the historian is giving a simple, 
unadorned account of the cosmogony. Nor can they be resolved 
into popular, optical description, such as we often employ still ; 
for we neither think of a solid, concave, transparent dome, in which 
the stars are fixed as lamps ; nor do we employ diction in any way 
consonant with the notion. It is plain that the meteorology of 
the Hebrews was very imperfect; and surely it can scarcely be 
denied that language regarding it was suggested by their erroneous 
belief. Turner himself concedes the point when he affirms that 
" the Hebrews were unacquainted with the true theory of physical 
nature." The writers used language in harmony with the current 
ideas, that they might be understood. These observations are strength- 
ened by another fact. 

2. Sometimes the diction employed respecting natural things is 
neither scientific nor optical, nor popular in any sense except as 
involving erroneous conceptions on the part of the people and 
partaking of them. For example, we read in Proverbs iii. 20,, 
" The clouds drop down the dew." But it has been well established 
by the beautiful experiments of Wells that, so far from clouds dis- 
tilling the clew, they are unfavourable to its formation. After a 
cloudy night, little or no dew is seen in the morning ; after a cloud- 
less one, especially succeeding a day of heat, dew appears in pro- 
fusion. A similar example, belonging to natural history, occurs in 
Job xxix. 18., where Ave have the words, " I shall multiply days 
as the phaznix,"' 1 alluding to the fabulous notion of the phcenix re- 
viving out of its own ashes, after living to a great age and dying 
in its nest. The bird itself is now considered fabulous. 

3. If, as we have just se-en, there was an accommodation on the 
part of the writers to the ideas of their times respecting the objects 
of nature, the possibility of their not being so far enlightened or 
inspired as to have correct, infallible knowledge on points of natural 
science, on chronology, archaeology, geography, &c, suggests itself 
to the reflecting mind. It may be asked, why extend their inspiration 
of correctness beyond what is properly religious and moral truth? Why 
not suppose that their knowledge of the subjects to which we have 
been adverting as secondary sources, was not always perfect or accu- 
rate — that they were "led into" religious not natural truth? The 
mission and office of the writers was a religious one. They were 

' Commentary on Isaiah, pp. 383, 384, Glasgow edition. 

2 That this is the correct explanation is shown by Hirzel and Ewald, in their Commen- 
taries on Job. .<r < ' rT ^-,^. ir t r ^ -F- + 



Limitations and Cautions. 373 

the media employed of God to make known his will to men respect 
ing His nature ; His modes of dealing with His responsible creatures 
on this earth ; their condition, duties, and hopes as immortal beings. 
They wrote to show in various ways what the history of the human 
race has been in relation to God, the Creator, Ruler, and loving 
Parent. All their communications bore upon Messiah and his sal- 
vation — the only-begotten Son of the Father in his humiliation, 
functions, and exaltation. They were religious and moral teachers. 
But they were not teachers of geography, astronomy, botany, phy- 
siology, or history. Their commission did not extend so far. 

The truth of these observations becomes more apparent as soon as 
the interpreter attempts to grapple with the serious difficulties, and 
even contradictions, that appear in the parts which elo not properly 
come under the head of religious and moral truth. For w T e believe, 
that none can doubt of the existence of contradictions in the records. 
It is not surprising that there should be difficulties in a divine reve- 
lation. If there were none, we should suspect its divinity. But it 
is surprising that there should be irreconcilable contrarieties in a 
divine revelation. Indeed a divine revelation cannot contain them. 
Hence when we see certain things in the secondary matters of history, 
of natural philosophy, of chronology and geography which cannot be 
brought into mutual concord, the natural inference is that they are 
not of a character to warrant their absolute correctness. 

The point now under consideration is a delicate one. To moot it 
at all is to tread on slippery ground. Yet when we see the mode in 
which the evangelists have narrated the leading events of the Saviour's 
life ; the absence of chronological arrangement in them ; the transpo- 
sitions and dislocations occurring in their records of discourses and 
actions ; we feel how likely it is that this was a matter on which their 
minds were not fully or infallibly enlightened. Some of them have 
certainly related things in an order in which they did not occur. 
And if they did not possess a full knowledge of such things, it need 
not be supposed that they had a jjerfectlg accurate knowledge. 

But here a question will be put by the conscientious though timid 
theologian, how can you draw a line between the region of religious 
and moral truth and the lower region you are now referring to ? 
Show me the clear boundary that divides the one from the other. If 
it be not a definite, it is a dangerous one. Where do you stop ? To 
these interrogatories we would humbly reply, that there is assuredly 
danger in placing the boundary line too near, much more in pushing 
it into, the pure and holy region where no error lies. The distinction 
may be injudiciously made or perverted to an improper purpose. 
But all things are liable to abuse. Fallen man is prone to pervert 
every thing right and good. In subjects of this nature w T here 
mathematical evidence is out of place, it is impossible to draw clear 
and palpable lines of demarcation. They do not admit of scientific 
exactness. Religious knowledge itself is not always accompanied 
with religious certainty. Moral truth does not carry with it irre- 
sistible infallibility to the mind. There is no infallible interpreter. 
There is no living oracle perpetually declaring what is certain truth, 

E B*3 



374 Biblical Interpretation. 

and what is not. If therefore all our knowledge partake of degrees 
of uncertainty, even the highest religious truths ; if their evidence 
coming to minds like ours produces very different effects upon them ; 
it need not be thought strange that a palpable and self-evident 
boundary-line between moral and historical, or spiritual and scientific 
truth, cannot be clearly drawn. God does not deal thus with his 
rational creatures. Yet we are inclined to believe, that the honest 
mind calmly seeking after God's truth in the spirit he approves, will 
not be at a loss to make sufficient distinction between religious or 
ethical truth, and departments that belong to the natural and human. 
A pious and pains-taking interpreter, using as he ought all requisite 
caution, will have little difficulty in seeing the two separate spheres, 
even though he " walks by faith, not by sight. " He who wishes to 
confound them, will easily succeed in doing so. 

In endeavouring thus to separate two portions of the Bible, we 
feel that we are doing a service to Revelation which, had it been 
performed long ago, would have cut away a great part of the ground 
under the feet of its adversaries. But the friends of Revelation 
did not see the matter in the light now presented, and therefore they 
contended for untenable positions by arguments weak and forced. 
No wonder they failed to convince, when they took a vulnerable stand- 
point. And all modern writers who occupy the same ground as 
they, battling earnestly for the infallibility of each and every part of 
the written Scriptures, though sentiments uttered in some parts of 
Job are expressly censured afterwards, give a great advantage to the 
opponents of Revelation. Nothing will serve more effectually to 
demolish the stronghold of sceptics than to deprive them of this point 
of attack. When we recede from it as one that cannot be maintained, 
and entrench ourselves within the citadel of religious truth, their 
weapons will be aimed against us in vain. Like the feeble javelin of 
aged Priam, they will fall to the ground without piercing the shield 
of faith. 

The view now humbly proposed is not novel in this country. It 
has been advanced by able and evangelical theologians, who, looking 
at the insuperable difficulties of the question in the same light as 
ourselves, have perceived it to be the only expedient whereby all that 
is truly called the word of God in the Bible can be preserved intact. 
Thus the author of the Scripture Testimony to the Messiah writes : 
" When I reflect upon the difficulties, using the mildest terms, which 
arise from an endeavour to convert passages containing matter merely 
genealogical, topographical, numerical, civil, military, fragments of 
antiquity domestic or national, presenting no character whatever of 
religious matter, into a rule of faith and manners, — I feel it im- 
possible to accept the conclusion : I can find no end of my anxiety, 
no rest for my faith, no satisfaction for my understanding, till I 
embrace the sentiment that the qualities of sanctity and inspiration 
belong only to the religious and theological element which is diffused 
through the Old Testament ; and that, where this ^element is absent, 
where there is nothing adapted to communicate ei doctrine, reproof, 
correction, or instruction in righteousness," nothing fitted to " make 



Limitations and Cautions. 375 

the man of God perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good 
work ; " — there, we are not called to acknowledge any inspiration, 
nor warranted to assume it. Thus I regard as inspired Scripture, all 
that refers to holy things, all that can bear the character of " oracles 
of God ; " and admit the rest as appendages, of the nature of private 
memoirs or public records, useful to the antiquary and the philolo- 
gist, but which belong not to the rule of faith, or the directory of 
practice. To this extent, and to this only, can I regard the sanction 
of the New Testament as given to the inspiration of the Old. In 
other words ; the quality of inspiration, forming the ground of faith 
and obedience, inheres in every sentence, paragraph, or book, which, 
either directly or by implication, contains religious truth, precept, or 
expectation. This, I humbly think, leaves us every thing that a 
Christian can wish for ; and it liberates us from the pressure of diffi- 
culties which have often furnished the enemies of revealed truth 
with pretexts for serious objections. Inspiration belongs to reli- 
gious objects ; and to attach it to other things is to lose sight of its 
nature and misapply its design." l 

The sentiments of Dr. Arnold were similar. This may be inferred 
from what the author of the " Phases of Faith" says respecting him. 
" It was a novelty to me that Arnold treated these questions as matters 
of indifference to religion," The questions referred to are such as 
the whole human race proceeding from one Adam and Eve in 6000 
years, the longevity of the patriarchs, the geology of the Mosaic 
cosmogony, the account of the deluge, &c. 2 

To the same effect Mr. Miall, in his excellent work " The Bases of 
Belief," says : " If it should be found that these faithful witnesses 
(the evangelists) have delivered their testimony in not wholly unex- 
ceptionable Greek — -or that in some matters, not touching their main 
object (matters, it may be geographical, ethnological, or philosophical), 
they are not enlightened above the common standard of their times 
and station — or that they have adopted habits whether of thought, of 
speech, or of action, which, perfectly innocent in themselves, might yet 
be smiled at, as founded in misapprehension, by such as have profited 
by the lengthened subsequent experience of the world, and by the 
progress of science — if, in a word, it should appear that the historic 
writers of the New Testament were really men of the age in which 
they lived, men of the country in which they were born and educated, 
men subject to the then limitations of general knowledge, men of indi- 
vidual tendencies, tastes, temperaments, passions, and even prejudices 
— and if, in transmitting to distant generations, by means of their 
writings, a perfectly accurate historical portraiture of the Messiah 
in whom they trusted, and whom they loved unto death, they must be 
admitted to have so far exemplified the above suppositions as to 
render the fact cognisable to every diligent student of their works — 
wherein is the world the worse for this, and, in what respect could 
our reason have wished it otherwise? We protest, we do not see." 3 

1 See Br. Pye Smith in the Congregational Magazine for July 1837, p. 422. 

2 Phases of Faith, pp. 67, 68., fourth edition. 3 Pp. 335, 336. 

B B 4 



376 Biblical Interpretation. 

The Rev. B. Powell, professor at Oxford, writes : " Even those 
divines who adopt the most approved views of the nature of inspira- 
tion may and do allow, that an inspired teacher might, in irrelevant 
points, be left to his own unassisted convictions, and on such matters 
would be no more enlightened than his contemporaries. . . .It 
may also be contended that in general any notion of a divine com- 
munication implies adaptation to the ideas, language, habits, disposi- 
tions, and opinions of the parties addressed ; since words, and existing 
notions, and prevalent modes of belief, of necessity form the only 
means and channels of communicating the religious truths intended 
to be conveyed. Thus, in such a case the introduction of views in 
themselves at variance with truths since elicited, is compatible with 
the veracity of the inspired teacher, and the absence of such a know- 
ledge as has since been obtained of facts which did not concern the 
tenor of his particular commission, is without difficulty reconcilable 
with his inspired and infallible knowledge of the truths which it was 
his province to communicate." l 

This is the view so well exhibited by Coleridge: <s If in that 
small portion of the Bible which stands in no necessary connection 
with the known and especial ends and purposes of the Scriptures, 
there should be a few apparent errors resulting from the state of 
knowledge then existing — errors which the best and holiest men 
might entertain uninjured, and which without a miracle those men 
must have entertained ; if I find no such miraculous prevention 
asserted, and see no reason for supposing it — may I not, to ease the 
scruples of a perplexed inquirer, venture to say to him : ' Be it so. 
What then ? The absolute infallibility even of the inspired writers 
in matters altogether incidental and foreign to the objects and pur- 
poses of their inspiration is no part of my creed.' " 2 

Authorities might be multiplied. Tholuck has shown, that the 
view of inspiration which regards Holy Scripture as the infallible 
production of the Divine Spirit not merely in its religious but in its 
entire contents, and not merely in its contents but also in its very 
form, did not originate either among Lutheran or Reformed divines 
earlier than the seventeenth century. With sufficient fulness he has 
proved that the more liberal aspect of inspiration which distinguishes 
the essential truths of religion and non-essential points, found advo- 
cates in all ages of the church, and was involuntarily developed as 
soon as one reflected on the peculiarities of the text. We refer 
therefore to his essay as a depository of facts and opinions all leading 
to the important conclusion that the absolute infallibility of the sacred 
books throughout was set up by Protestantism as a counterpoise to 
the infallible authority asserted and claimed by the Romish Church. 
Protestantism sought to recover by means of the outwardly au- 
thoritative and entire infallibility of books, what it had lost by reject- 
ing inspired councils and popish infallibility. 3 

1 See the Connection of Natural and Divine Truth, pp. 256. 258. • 

2 Confessions of an Inquiring Spirit, pp. 83, 84. 

3 See Tholuck's Essay, " The Doctrine of Inspiration" translated from the German by 
the Kev. T. Nicholas. 



Commentaries. 377 

CHAP. XVIII. 

C0M31ENTAKIES. 

Expository works on the Scriptures have been divided into various 
;lasses according to their characteristic nature. 

We may arrange them under the following heads, viz. Scholia, 
Commentaries, and Paraphrases. All have the same object, viz. to 
conduct their readers to a right understanding of the authors they 
undertake to explain. In doing so, they must remove obscurities, 
reconcile discrepancies, point out the sequence of discourse, and make 
plain the true sense intended to be conveyed by the original writers. 
Whatever causes doubt in the mind of the reader as to the meaning 
of the Bible, should be taken out of the way. 

Scholia. — We have already said that these are short notes on 
Scripture. They explain words and phrases by others that are 
clearer, especially such as present some obscurity or difficulty. 
External sources, such as history, geography, and archaeology, are 
applied to the elucidation of the sacred writers. In the case of difficult 
passages, diiferent interpretations are detailed and discussed, and 
that which appears the most probable one indicated. The connection 
of one verse with another, marking the sequence of thought in the 
authors of Scripture, is usually omitted. The scholiast deals with 
single words and expressions, as also with the most important passages, 
rather than with each and every thing continuously as it comes 
before him in the text. Aiming at condensation and brevity, he 
does not touch every point which might be treated. But he passes 
by nothing material, striking, or intricate, whether words or sen- 
tences, showing the true meaning in as few terms as he thinks 
sufficient to exhibit it. 

There are many scholia on the Greek and Latin classics, whose 
labours have been gratefully recognised and applied by modern 
scholars. But we have not to do with them at the present time. 
We are concerned solely with scholiasts on the Bible. Here the 
ancient ones were much more sparing in their remarks than the 
modern. The former restricted themselves almost entirely to the 
elucidation of words and phrases ; whereas the latter have taken a 
wider range. The prominent and usual idea associated with scholia 
is grammatical and historical interpretation; though the title has 
been given to some works which embrace more than this. Thus 
Maurer's Commentarius Grammaticus Criticus in vetus Testamentum 
would correspond tolerably well to what was the older notion of 
scholia, though the writer does not so designate his work. The 
best scholia on the Old Testament are those of Rosenmiiller. These 
again approach nearly to what is called a commentary. They scarcely 
answer the proper notion of conciseness and brevity attaching to 
scholia. A good specimen of scholia on the New Testament are 
Grotius's Annotationes. Those on the Old Testament are similar in 
character. 



378 Biblical Interpretation. 

Commentaries. — The line distinguishing these from scholia has been 
gradually becoming indistinct. They differ in the present day more 
in their length than any other particular. Instead too of attending 
chiefly to words and phrases, the commentator traces the train of 
thought and argument pursued by the sacred writers. He examines 
every thing more fully than the scholiast ; and instead of omitting 
any part or passage, his explanations run on continuously. Every 
thing is brought to bear fairly and largely upon the sacred text, so as 
to bring out all the meaning intended, and the precise method 
pursued by the original author to attain the object he had in view. 
Nothing is passed by that can possibly tend to throw light upon the 
Holy Scriptures. Whatever is dark is rendered clear ; whatever is 
obscure is made plain. And in passages where it is not easy to 
arrive at the right explanation amid conflicting vieAvs, the commen- 
tator will not merely state the sense he considers on the whole the 
most probable, but he will canvass and sift the leading opinions 
respecting it, showing in what manner they are objectionable or 
otherwise. He gives the grounds and reasons for adopting one and 
not another view of a controverted passage. 

Commentaries will necessarily differ in character according to the 
peculiar genius and qualifications of those who make them. Every 
one has his own method. Some pursue a critical method. Others 
run out into practical remarks and inferences. Others indulge in 
spiritual meditations which they educe from the text. Others unite 
critical, philological, spiritual, and practical observations. Of late 
these different methods have been kept apart much more than before. 
The critical and philological commentator has confined himself very 
much to the one mode, leaving other things to such as write with 
another design. The practical commentator again has confined him- 
self chiefly to the meaning of Scripture as bearing on the conduct of 
men. It is impossible, however, for any man to be a competent and 
able commentator without possessing the varied qualifications and 
attainments evinced by all these. His acquirements and skill must 
be ample and thorough. Hence no one man can be an able commen- 
tator on all Scripture. Life is too short for that. He may indeed 
traverse all the books of the Bible, writing upon them what others 
have said, and adding something of his own ; or he may write upon 
them the independent thoughts of his own mind regarding the true 
sense, with some after glances at different views on many passages ; 
but in neither way will he produce an able and exhaustive commen- 
tary unless he were to live to the age of an antediluvian patriarch 
with all his faculties fresh and vigorous. We have had perfunctory 
commentaries in abundance ; what is wanted is a thorough one on 
each separate book or on separate books of Scripture, from well- 
qualified scholars. 

A paraphrase requires that we speak first of a version, as it is a 
kind of version. The latter is a rendering of the words and ideas of 
a sacred writer faithfully, perspicuously, and completely into a dif- 
ferent language from that which he employed. The first thing 
which demands the care of a translator is to give a just representation 



Commentaries. 379 

of the sense. The second is to convey the spirit and manner of the 
original into his version as far as he can consistently with the genius 
of the language he writes. The third is to see that the version 
appear natural and easy, reading very much like an original perform- 
ance. These duties, essential to a successful translator, require a 
competent knowledge of the two languages about which he is em- 
ployed, as well as a perfect mastery of the sense of the original 
author or authors. In the business of translation there are some 
peculiar difficulties. To attain all the things mentioned as belonging 
together to a good version, is by no means easy. Sometimes indeed, 
one or two of them must be sacrificed to the other, as Campbell has 
well shown. 1 

There are two methods of translation, which may be called two 
extremes. One is the literal and close ; the other, the loose and 
free. Both have advantages and disadvantages. If either should 
be exclusively followed in relation to the Scriptures, we should pre- 
fer the literal, even though there be greater risk of unintelligibility 
and obscurity. But perhaps it is possible to combine the advan- 
tages of both in a happy medium, as De Wette appears to have done. 

Having thus explained what kind of exposition a version consti- 
tutes, we are prepared to speak of paraphrases. These differ little 
from loose and free versions. In them the meaning of the sacred 
authors is expressed with greater latitude. The words are not so 
strictly followed as the sense, which latter is brought forth in an 
ampler manner than is expressed by the original terms themselves. 
The paraphrast therefore inserts whatever is necessary to elucidate 
the connection or show the coherence of thought. He fills up 
chasms ; and on the other hand abridges what is capable of abbrevia- 
tion without injury to the sense. He substitutes two or more words 
for one, where occasion requires. He removes obscurity and intri- 
cacy by skilful use of other language and judicious alteration of 
construction. These are liberties which the paraphrast takes with 
the original text ; but it is always understood that they are resorted 
to only when necessary. We do not think highly of paraphrases, 
because Scripture is generally diluted by them. The force and 
vigour of the original is liable to be weakened. They often convert 
wine into water. Even when skilfully made, which seldom happens, 
they immerse the genuine sense of the Bible in a floating sea of 
words. This is exemplified by Guyse in his paraphrase of the New 
Testament, especially in passages capable of two or three meanings. 
Doddridge has succeeded best, though various defects are observable 
in his work. Gn the whole, paraphrases can scarcely be considered 
popular, in public opinion. And public opinion in this respect ap- 
pears to be right. Their utility is not great. They cannot be com- 
pared with versions in the benefit they afford the reader. Indeed 
versions have almost superseded them. 

Homilies are another kind of interpretation, in which portions of 
Scripture are familiarly explained and practically applied. They 

1 Preliminary Dissertations to the Gospels, Dissertation 10, part i. 



380 Biblical Interpretation. 

are expository and hortatory sermons. The Latins called them ser 
mones or tractatus, and the authors tractatores, i. e. as we should style 
them lecturers or preachers. Ammon asserts that homilies were often 
filled with pious fables and the philosophy of the age. But this is 
too strong and sweeping an affirmation, one made from his own 
rationalist point of view. They contained what the writers believed, 
and had certainly little philosophy in them. Origen and Chrysostom 
were the best homily writers in ancient times. The appellation is 
now antiquated, having been supplanted by sermon or lecture. But 
the thing has been well exemplified by Jay in what he calls his 
" Exercises." The absence of formal division and logical sequence is 
usually included in the idea of a homily ; and in this respect it may 
be said to differ from the orrdinary sermon founded on a detached 
text. 

In addition to the preceding expository works we may mention 
books containing observations or notes illustrative of the sacred 
writings. These productions, of which many have been published 
within the last fifty years in England, contain explanations either 
grammatical and philological, or historical, or geographical, or mis- 
cellaneous. Of this kind are Priestley's Notes on the Bible, which 
relate chiefly to its natural history, geography, and chronology; 
Harmer's Observations, revised by Clarke ; Burder's Oriental Cus- 
toms, and Oriental Literature ; Paxton's Illustrations ; Sharpe's His- 
toric Notes, ' and many others. But such works are not often pub- 
lished now, because the prevailing tendency is towards commentaries 
on separate books which, being complete, contain explanations of the 
theology, ethics, philology, history, geography, and archaeology of 
the sacred writers. Commentaries full and exhaustive are chiefly 
prized. 

All reflecting readers of the Holy Scriptures are agreed that com- 
mentaries and expositions cannot be dispensed with by such as desire 
to obtain an intelligent apprehension of divine revelation. However 
learned and accomplished the student of the Bible be, he is conscious 
of the need of other men's labours upon it. It is only the sciolist 
who will despise the numerous expositions which have appeared. 
From a mistaken apprehension of the injury they may cause, he may 
neglect their aid ; but he is certainly unwise in doing so. Afraid 
of their abuse in his hands, he turns away from the use of them 
altogether. No wise man will do so. He will diligently avail him- 
self of the help they afford, endeavouring not to follow them 
slavishly ; not to found his faith on the opinions of fallible beings 
like himself; but to employ them with discrimination. It is one 
thing to have recourse to them in the spirit of a reverential inquirer 
everywhere judging for self, and another to follow them implicitly, 
having no independent opinions. The reader of commentaries must 
always use the right of private judgment, just as the commentators 
themselves did. What renders the help of human expositions desirable 
if not necessary to the right understanding of Scripture is, the nature 
of Scripture itself. It is often asserted that the Bible is a plain book ; 
the wayfaring man, though a fool, may not err therein. It is level 



Commentaries. 381 

to the capacities and apprehension of the humble, the poor, the unlet- 
tered. If he has only a teachable disposition, and simply desire to 
know the sense of what is written, he will easily discover it for him- 
self. This is true to a certain extent, and no more. Some portions 
are easily and readily understood. The most important parts are of 
this nature, being patent to the judgment and feelings of a common 
reader. The way of salvation is clear. But the Bible is likewise 
a difficult book. Many parts of it are unintelligible to the majority 
of unlettered readers. It is a learned book, and therefore obscure. 
Amid its multifarious contents, there are allusions to geography, his- 
tory, customs and manners, botany, antiquities, sects and creeds, 
which require explanation to most. It is a great mistake therefore 
to affirm that the Bible is an easy book. The opposite asseveration 
would be much nearer the truth. The men who have devoted 
most time and attention to its elucidation all say that it is difficult. 
Out of this difficulty arises the feeling of the need of commentaries. 
And whatever be the extent of one's erudition, acquirements, or 
genius, he cannot safely neglect them. Knowing that he must be 
benefited by their perusal, he betakes himself to such as seem likely 
to render most assistance. In relation to the choice of commentaries, 
much depends on the previous knowledge and habits of the person 
who wishes to use them. Ministers of the gospel and students 
should not of course resort to such as are most suitable for unlet- 
tered readers. Those who read the Bible mainly for edification will 
refrain from critical and philological expositions. They will take 
up with Matthew Henry, the greater part of whose remarks are 
mere preaching, not proper interpretation; or perhaps with Scott, 
who preaches less, though he paraphrases too much and really ex- 
pounds but little. But ministers of the gospel, and such as are 
studying with a view to qualify themselves for the more efficient 
discharge of their duties, will go to Hammond, Whitby, Macknight, 
Campbell, Elsley, and Slade. Not that we are now recommending 
these latter as sufficient or the best. Far from it. They are 
specified as likely to be among the exegetical helps of the professed 
interpreter. 

We would recommend none to collect many commentaries. They 
will perplex rather than guide him. Let every one choose two or 
three of the best and most recent. We say the most recent, since it is 
likely, ceteris paribus, that the last expositor is the most successful, 
having the benefit of all preceding ones. Let the ordinary reader of 
the Bible procure the Comprehensive Family Bible published by 
Blackie of Glasgow, joining with it Barnes's Notes on the New Tes- 
tament, and they will suffice for him. Again, let him whose office it 
is to expound the Scriptures to others, procure De Wette, Meyer, 
and Olshausen on the New Testament, with the Exegetical Hand- 
book on the Old, and he will be tolerably well furnished. Only in 
the case of the Old Testament, he must select some other good com- 
mentaries on the most important books, such as Genesis, Psalms, 
Isaiah, Job ; for here the Exegetical Handbook is insufficient and 
unsatisfactory. The commentary of Alexander on Isaiah is excel- 



382 Biblical Interpretation. 

lent ; those of De Wette and Hengstenberg together are immensely 
superior to Olshausen on the Psalms ; while Tuch and Delitzsch 
must be added to Knobel's on Genesis ; Ewald to Hirzel on Job. 

Ernesti propounds a twofold use of commentators and interpreters. 

The first is, that we may derive from them the right method of in- 
terpreting for ourselves. Of course this applies only to those who 
are designed for the office of the ministry. The student of theology 
should fix upon some one or two of the best interpreters, by whose 
careful and repeated perusal he may gradually form himself to their 
method of exposition. While thus occupied, he ought occasionally 
to consult others in difficult passages. We cordially approve of this 
counsel given by the accomplished Ernesti. But when he particu- 
larly recommends Grotius, especially his Notes on Matthew's Gospel, 
we, who live in Great Britain, and have in our hands later and 
better expositions, cease to follow. Grotius is too grammatical. He 
does not bring out the theological teachings of the sacred authors. 
On the other hand, Bengel in his Gnomon is not grammatical enough. 
Yet he commonly educes the sentiment and theology of the writers 
with skilful brevity. 

A second use of expositors is to help us in understanding difficult 
and obscure passages. This is the principal use of them, especially 
to a theologian, who can easily perceive of himself the sense of all the 
more obvious places. Here it is where commentators fail most. Into 
what is really perplexing they do not enter fully and thoroughly, 
looking at all the obscurities which fairly lie in many sentences and 
paragraphs. A commentary which should really grapple with these 
places alone would be very valuable. If the whole mental strength 
of an accomplished and judicious interpreter were laid out upon them, 
his work would be a welcome acquisition to many. It is a good 
practice to devote excursus or separate essays to these difficult pas- 
sages, as some have done. Thus greater space is allotted to their 
discussion, without materially interrupting the thread of continuous 
commentary. The only commentary in English with which we are 
acquainted that is professedly limited to the difficulties of Scripture, 
is that published by Carpenter in 1828, undertaking to elucidate 
nearly seven hundred passages in the Old and New Testaments. But 
it is perfunctory and worthless. The old work of Dr. Richard 
Coore, called " The Practical Expositor of the more Difficult Texts 
that are contained in the Holy Bible," can hardly be pronounced a 
commentary on the obscure places, for it is confined to comparatively 
few. And the book of O. St. John Cooper, published towards the 
close of the eighteenth century (1791), and professing to explain 
four hundred texts of Holy Scripture, is a very meagre and unsuc- 
cessful attempt to grapple with some difficulties, not the greatest 
ones, nor in the true method of a master-critic. One should have 
expected that the obscure places would be well expounded in a con- 
densed commentary, such as Cobbin's. But this is not done in it. 
There the really difficult passages receive no light. A number of 
diverse opinions exclude the light which is wanted. 

We can give no rules on the subject of commentaries. Perhaps 



Commentaries. 383 

the following hints may be useful to such as wish for guidance or 
information : — 

1. Each one should he careful to choose what are the best for the 
purpose he has in view. Probably this may be considered an easy 
thing amid the variety and goodness of such helps as exist. But the 
very number of them renders it the more perplexing to make the 
best selection. Those who are inexperienced may be readily misled, 
for we believe that the great bulk of what are called commentaries in 
English are of little use, and undeserving of the name. They are not 
proper expositions. They are a collection of miscellaneous remarks, 
some relevant, others not, with sermonising matter to supply the 
place of a clear and full exhibition of the meaning intended by the 
sacred authors. Good commentaries are rare. Indifferent ones are 
plentiful. Hence the necessity of caution in the selection. He who 
desires to know the sense of Scripture must look out for such works 
as were written by learned, skilful, judicious, large-minded men, who 
devoted their best years to the perusal of the books which they have 
interpreted. A very few such are more valuable than a thousand 
superficial productions, proceeding from incompetent writers. 

2. In following the counsel now suggested, the student will do 
well to avoid expository works which are largely compiled or trans^- 
scribed from others. It is better to go to the originals themselves 
than to repetitions of them by a later writer. Under compilations 
we include abridgments and condensations, as well as those not pro- 
fessedly taken from former works, though really so. Thus P'Oyley 
and Mant's is a compilation, and a very meagre and insufficient 
one. A. Clarke's is little better than a compilation gathered out 
of many heterogeneous sources. Dodd's is still more so, and in- 
ferior. There is also a commentary from Henry and Scott, manu- 
factured by George Stokes, and published by the Religious Tract 
Society. The very extensive one of Jenks, in America, is chiefly 
from Scott, Henry, and Doddridge. We recommend the student 
carefully to eschew all such, for he can ■easily procure far better; and 
his time will only be wasted in their perusal. Compilations are 
comparatively worthless. They proceed from inferior men, who very 
often do not know the best works to take as the basis of their 
extracts. 

3. In using commentators, we earnestly advise the reader not to 
lean unduly upon them. Do not employ them as a school-boy study- 
ing the Greek and Latin classics does translations. They should be 
kept in their proper place, which is that of assistants, not perpetual 
guides. Our Saviour enjoined his disciples to call no man master on 
earth. When therefore Cyprian was accustomed to call Tertullian 
by the name magister, and to say to his secretary da mihi magistrnm, 
he transgressed the spirit of the precept. And so does every one who 
relies implicitly on one or two commentators, virtually erecting them 
into an infallible standard to himself. Such slavish submission of 
the understanding is opposed to the genius of Christianity. It fet- 
ters the mind, effectually preventing all right exercise of its powers. 
The man who follows the course in question is weak, and he will 



384 Biblical Interpretation. 

assuredly become feebler in mental vigour by continuing in it. 
Prove all things, says the Apostle Paul. Prove and judge the very 
best commentators ; they are fallible like yourself. 

4. Do not neglect the Scriptures themselves. Read and peruse 
them diligently while commentaries are employed. Indeed it is 
only thus that one can possibly use the latter aright. Test them by 
the Bible itself, searching there whether things be so as they are re- 
presented. The Beroeans acted thus with regard to the first teachers 
of Christianity ; and Christians must do the same in relation to 
expositions. If they can understand the Scriptures in the original 
languages, it will be so much the better. But if they cannot, they 
will be much more at the mercy of their guides. Every one who is 
dedicated to the sacred office of the ministry ought to know the 
original Scriptures. How can he judge in all cases for himself with- 
out this knowledge ? But even the mere English reader should not 
fail to study the text as he has it in the authorised version, inde- 
pendently of commentators;, and form his own opinion of the mean- 
ing ; for if he waits till he sees what others think and say, he may as 
well cease to care about all separate examination, and resign himself 
contentedly to his approved masters. 

5. Ceteris paribus we should rely more on the exposition of a pious 
than of a frivolous man, for he is far more likely to arrive at the 
truth. Deep-toned piety is necessary to educe all the meaning of 
the Scriptures, especially their spiritual teachings. See how such 
men as Luther, Calvin, and Melancthon penetrated into the true 
theology of the Bible, unfolding its divine stores of truth; while 
some later interpreters, possessed of infinitely greater advantages, 
having all the appliances of learning within their reach, have signally 
failed notwithstanding. And why ? Because they lacked the right 
spirit — the spirit of sanctity moulding and guiding all their resources. 
How has Hitzig failed in the Psalms ! How has Paulus failed in 
the Gospels ! Material views clouded and clogged their minds. 
Even Macknight, with his numerous excellences, is comparatively 
dry and sapless, so much so that we should have strongly suspected 
the depth and extent of his piety, had he not been removed from the 
tribunal of earthly criticism. Of the same dry character is Meyer, 
judging at least from some of his expositions, especially that on 
John's Gospel. But Stier is fresh, vigorous, original, evincing the 
spirit of an active and warm piety. There is little doubt that the 
nature and degree of a man's devotional habits will tinge his com- 
ments on the Bible. 

6. Having selected a commentator to be chiefly studied, his 
strong points should be observed and noted. His peculiar excel- 
lences should be marked in the mind. Every one has some 
characteristic qualities by which he is best known, and in which 
his preeminence lies. Let the most valuable features of each expo- 
sitor be carefully attended to, for they are entitled to command a 
more ready assent and to challenge a warmer approbation. On the 
other hand, the weak points of each will also require attention, that 
they may be avoided. Most commentaries have their frailties as 



The Special Interpretation of Scripture. 385 

well as their excellencies. Let the student be aware of the points in 
which his favourite expositor is most likely to betray his weakness, 
and he will not be misled. Thus Hammond's failing is his leaning 
towards the Gnostics, whom he finds far oftener than the sacred 
writers ever intended. 

7. Beware of those interpreters who love to be singular in their 
explanations, or run into ingenious noA r elties. The minds of some 
are naturally prone to this. They like to be different from their 
predecessors. Dr. A. Clarke had something of this. Hence his ape 
for the serpent that tempted Eve ; his inclination to think that 
Elijah was not fed by ravens but by merchants or Arabians ; his 
adherence to Bishop Pearce in interpreting " one thing is needful " 
to mean only one dish is necessary. We have great distrust in one 
who affects singularity. He is often singularly foolish. 

It would be easy to exemplify the preceding hints and cautions by 
means of passages taken out of commentators. But it is unneces- 
sary and would be ungracious. If they shall prove of the least 
advantage to the inquiring student, plain and obvious though they 
be, they will serve their purpose. 



BOOK II. 

THE SPECIAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 



CHAPTER I. 

Having stated the general principles of interpretation, we proceed 
to notice what is termed special interpretation. Under this topic is 
included the interpretation of the figurative language of the Bible, 
of its poetry, of its types, prophecies, doctrinal and moral parts, its 
promises and threatenings, of passages said to be contradictory. A 
fitting close to the whole will be the consideration of that inferential 
reading and practical application of the Scriptures without which 
they can be of no permanent benefit to the heart. 

INTERPRETATION OF THE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE. 

Figurative language has its origin not merely in the difficulty of 
finding suitable words to express various mental states and emotions, 
but in the constitution of the mind itself. Like all other books, there- 
fore, the Bible exhibits images and metaphors. It could not be 
intelligible without them. But it has more of them than many pro- 
ductions. It abounds in figurative language. The images are not 
only appropriate but frequent. And while they are necessary th 
are also ornamental, imparting life, emphasis, and beauty. 

The language in which the Old Testament is written is a very 
ancient one. Hence it partakes of a character somewhat different 

VOL. II. C C 



386 Biblical Interpretation. 

from that of modern compositions. Having the stamp and air of the 
antique, the style varies from that found in later works. The 
Hebrew was comparatively poor in forms and flexions. Accordingly 
terms are used for various purposes, giving rise to a multitude of 
topics. Blair describes figures to be that language which is prompted 
either by the imagination or by the passions. 1 By rhetoricians 
they are usually divided into two great classes ; figures of words and 
figures of thoughts. The former, commonly called tropes, con- 
sist in a word's being employed to signify something different from 
its original and primitive meaning ; so that by altering the word the 
figure is destroyed. Thus when God is termed a sun, the trope lies 
in the word sun, which is turned aside from its original and proper 
meaning to denote what gives mental illumination, warmth, and 
comfort. At the same time He is termed a shield, in the same 
tropical manner. Figures of thought again, suppose words to be 
used in their literal and proper meaning, and the figure to consist 
in the turn of thought, as in exclamations, interrogations, apo- 
strophes, &c, where the same figure may be preserved in the thought, 
though the words employed be varied, or translated from one lan- 
guage into another. Blair speaks slightingly however of the dis- 
tinction in question and suggests another, viz. figures of imagination 
and figures of passion. But this is not much clearer than the former, 
neither could it always be carried out in practice. 

According to some authors figure and trope differ as genus and 
species. Others again would make them different things by saying 
that trope is a change of sense, while figure is any ornament except 
what becomes so by such change. But these distinctions are use- 
less. We shall employ them interchangeably, as also the adjectives 
tropical and figurative. Tropical is opposed to improper; figurative 
to literal. The proper sometimes coincides with the primitive or 
original signification, and therefore its synonyme literal has been 
taken as equivalent to primitive. But this is not always the case. 
The original signification may have gone out of use, and then the 
literal assumes the place of the primary, as far as relates to usage. 
When however the primary is still in use, the tropical commonly 
belongs to the secondary senses. 

In the interpretation of tropical language two things are to be 
considered, first, to distinguish it from what is proper ; secondly, to 
exhibit it in corresponding and appropriate terms. The first is 
preparatory to the second. The first ascertains and determines what 
is really figurative and so introduces the other, which is the proper 
interpretation of the figurative diction ascertained. 

To discover whether an expression be tropical or proper, certain 
rules have been laid down by hermeneutical writers. As far 
as we have examined them or can understand their nature, they do 
not appear to be of much use. Indeed they can scarcely be termed 
rules. They are general observations whose tendency is more nega- 
tive than positive. Various authors, such as Dannhauer, Calovius, 
&c. recommend that the proper sense should be retained till some 
1 Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, Lecture xiv. 



Figurative Language. 387 

evident cause or necessity be pointed out ; but as they do not define 
the necessity or explain what they mean by an evident cause, the 
rule is practically useless. Doubtless they are correct in their 
ideas ; the admonition itself shows that they are ; but the very 
general language employed renders it all but valueless in practice. 
The evident cause needs to be defined and specified. The necessity 
requires precise explanation ; for what one expositor may think such, 
another may not. A necessity may be created by one, where an- 
other does not see it. Ernesti, who has noted the deficiency of the 
maxim in question, has given a very obscure rule himself. When he 
states that the tropical may be generally distinguished " by referring 
the thing spoken of to our external or internal senses, that is, by re- 
calling its external or internal perception," ' he enunciates what is 
darkly metaphysical. Nor can we perceive that such observations as, 
" the literal meaning of words must be retained, more in the his- 
torical books of Scripture, than in those which are poetical," are of 
any practical utility, because of their extreme generality. 

In examining whether language be tropical or otherwise, we neces- 
sarily carry with us those ideas which spring out of innate tendencies in 
the mind, and are common to rational men. We refer to the original 
intuitions in man which proceed from the Deity, and all the ideas 
which natural religion inculcates. This is no more than what is done in 
every part of exegesis. We come to the Bible with a certain belief 
respecting the nature and perfections of the Deity. We have funda- 
mental notions of what he can do, and of what is contrary to his 
attributes. We can judge of what is conformable to the infinite 
mind, and what is not. We are so constituted as to have apprehen- 
sions of right and wrong, of evidence which cannot be resisted and 
of that which is simply probable. Hence it may be laid down in 
general terms, — 

That whenever the literal meaning of words involves an impos- 
sibility, an absurdity, a contradiction, it must be abandoned. Under 
this we include all that violates the intuitive perceptions of mankind, 
or the great principles of natural religion on which the common 
reason is agreed. Whatever is contrary to the irresistible evidence 
of the senses ; to the moral sense which all have by nature from the 
hand of their Maker ; to the notions of congruity, fitness, and pro- 
priety which form an essential ingredient in the constitution of the 
human mind, must be taken as improper language. Whenever the 
broad principles or laws, intellectual or moral, which are essential to 
humanity, are violated by the literal meaning of words, it should be 
given up. By virtue of this, we instinctively separate from the 
nature of the Deity whatever is material or finite. Bodily parts and 
human passions are excluded. In reading all that language in which 
He is described as having hands, arms, feet, eyes, nostrils, face, &c, 
and as feeling anger, hatred, repentance, wrath, vengeance, we must 
take it as tropical. So, when we read of heaven as a city having 
streets, walls, and gates ; of a throne or thrones there, on which the 
Father and the Son sit ; of golden harps and vials, with all similar 
1 Principles of Biblical Interpretation, translated by Terrot, vol. i, p. 139. 



388 Biblical Interpretation. 

expressions pourtraying the heavenly world and its furniture, the 
diction is evidently figurative. The nature of the subject, with our 
own inherent belief of the Deity and his operations, forbid any other 
assumption. In like manner, the descriptions of the day of judg- 
ment and the world of misery must be construed tropically. Such 
expressions as their worm dieth not, the fire is not quenched, everlasting 
fire, are figurative. If the language which relates to the heavenly 
state be so, that which regards the day of judgment and the state 
of woe must consistently be understood in the same manner. Mr. 
Stuart says very truly, that one of the things which the human 
mind learns very slowly, is to detach itself from conceptions which 
arise from material objects, and to perceive that in all the descrip- 
tions of a future state, words are necessarily employed which origi- 
nally have a literal sense, because language affords no other. 1 Such 
things could not have been described to us otherwise than in diction 
taken from outward, material objects. Had purely abstract phraseo- 
logy been employed, we should have received no ideas of their 
nature. In that case the wisdom of Deity would have been at fault, 
since a spiritual vocabulary, unborrowed from external nature, is not 
in use among us ; nor could we understand it, if it were. As long- 
as we are the beings we are, with five senses serving as the inlets to 
knowledge, and using language to express our ideas, taken from the 
outer world, the wisdom of God is apparent in giving a revelation in 
which terms are employed respecting himself and his operations, as 
also the eternal future state in both aspects of it, which are directly 
taken from sensible things. 

Provided with such internal apparatus, the interpreter comes to 
his task of distinguishing the tropical from the proper. By means of 
it he determines in a general way what is impossible, absurd, contra- 
dictory, irrational — every thing which forms a necessity for departing 
from the literal and proper. 

Let us give some examples. 

In the 91st Psalm, fourth verse, we read of Jehovah covering 
his protected saint with his feathers, with which his icings are asso- 
ciated. But this is impossible; for God is wholly spiritual. The 
sufferer in the 22nd Psalm, sixth verse, says, " I am a worm." This 
is absurd, if taken literally ; it is obviously figurative. In Isaiah i. 
25., the Lord is represented as promising, " I will turn my hand 
upon thee, and purely purge away thy dross, and take away all thy 
tin." Here also the literal sense is evidently inapplicable. Of the 
same nature is the phrase in Zechariah, " Open thy doors, O Leba- 
non " (xi. 1.). When our Lord says, in Matt. viii. 22., "Let the 
dead bury their dead," it is obvious that dead in the first case cannot 
mean literally dead ; for in that case the thing were impossible. The 
command of Christ related in Matt, xviii. 8, 9., viz. to cut off the 
hand or the foot, or to pluck out the eye, if taken literally, is con- 
trary to the teaching of natural theology, which instructs us that 
there are certain duties we owe to ourselves, as well as repugnant 

1 See Elements of Biblical Criticism and Interpretation, &c. edited by Henderson, p. 109. 



Figurative Language. 389 

to sound reason. Hence the language must be tropical. Another 
example belonging here occurs in the words of Christ, " This is my 
body . . . this is my blood" (Mark xiv. 22. 24.). Every view of these 
expressions shows that the literal sense is impossible, absurd, repug- 
nant to the evidence of the senses. Jesus could not take his body 
and blood literally in his hands, and holding them out to his dis- 
ciples say, eat and drink. The one had not yet been broken ; the 
other had not yet been shed. The doctrine of transubstantiation, 
founded upon the literal and proper acceptation of such language, 
contradicts the evidence of the senses, and cannot therefore be true. 
Had the apostles believed that the bread and wine were really con- 
verted into the veritable body and blood of Christ who then spoke 
to them, they would doubtless have been amazed and horrified. 
The bread and the wine were merely symbols or outward repre- 
sentations of the broken body and shed blood. The sign is put for 
the thing signified, as is done in most if not all languages, and fre- 
quently in the Scriptures themselves. 

Akin to this are the words in John vi. 53. : " Except ye eat the 
flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in 
you ; " a command repugnant, in its literal acceptation, to the moral 
sense of mankind, and in the sight of God a heinous crime. Hence 
it should be understood figuratively. 

But the general precept Avhich has been given and exemplified, 
us forward only a little way in actual exegesis. Simple as it 
appears, and satisfactory as it may be considered, it furnishes little 
assistance in determining what is figurative on subjects and points to 
which it might be deemed most applicable. This might be shown 
by the word 1^1 and its corresponding Greek <ycvvdu>, beget, as used 
in Scripture in relation to Christ. Ernesti too positively affirms 
that the word beget is as properly used in theology as in human 
affairs. 1 It must have somewhat of a figurative sense in the con- 
nection before us. The inception of the filial relation was a peculiar, 
mysterious thing. When the divine consciousness connected itself 
with humanity, the Son was constituted. We believe that Gesenius 
and Robinson, in their Lexicons, have failed to perceive the sense of 
the word. They have not seen that it conveys a profound idea 
connected with the divine Being in communicating his divine nature, 
or in the divine and eternal consciousness manifesting itself, so to 
speak, to man through the medium of a human veil. 

Besides, the fundamental principles of reason are liable to so much 
obscuration in fallen man, that many fail to apply the maxim to the 
extent it legitimately reaches to, or are insensible to perceive its 
successful application in the hands of others. The moral sense of 
the mass of mankind is dull, blunt, degraded beneath the super- 
incumbent load of passions and prejudices. They do not reflect or 
reason. They live lives of sense not of rationality. Hence, even 
with regard to the Deity himself, many scarcely conceive of him as 
a purely spiritual Being, but attribute to him literally those bodily 

1 See to! i. p. 141. 
C C 3 



390 Biblical Interpretation. 

parts aiid human passions which are abhorrent to sound reason, 
They rest in the gross sense, even in relation to that infinitely holy 
God who has written a law on the heart which his creature is some- 
times too brutish to understand. Even such as have opportunities 
of enlightenment as well as incentives to reflection, come far short 
of realising in practice the value of the precept or general maxim we 
have given, and so fall into absurdity or contradiction in the broad 
light of truth. They hold by the literal meaning, as in transubstan- 
tiation, when it is manifestly repugnant to the evidence of sense, of 
reason, of moral propriety and fitness. We may cease to wonder at 
the Jews taking so many things literally, and falling accordingly 
into gross errors, when we consider the belief of many professing 
Christians as doing equal violence to human reason. They had little 
light compared with ours now. They were purposely instructed like 
children, by outward, material, visible objects. We may cease to be 
surprised even at the disciples, who were little better than Jews 
before the ascension of their Master, when they are observed to 
mistake the literal for the figurative. It was then the twilight of 
Christianity ; the day has long ago dawned. But gross-minded man 
is prone to convert the figurative into the literal in relation to that 
very Being who is spirit and emphatically declared to be such as 
well by the book without as the book within him, — the objective 
equally with the subjective revelation. 

We are not left, however, to the generality of the maxim, useful 
as it is in practice to him who exercises his reason. Not because it 
fails to be useful in the hands of the ignorant, but notwithstanding 
this and over against it, do we set in array other precepts more par- 
ticular in character, though not more extensive in applicability than 
itself. The usual means of ascertaining the usus loquendi of terms 
and phrases, as also of discovering the meaning of sentences and 
paragraphs, are appropriate here. They are sufficient to guide the 
expositor in this respect also. The context immediate or more 
remote, parallel passages, the scope of a writer, the nature of his 
composition, the analogy of faith, historical circumstances, all lead 
to a separation of the tropical from the proper. The entire science 
of interpretation employs the same apparatus. The same principles 
regulate the whole process, whatever be the kind of diction em- 
ployed by the sacred writers. Hence some examples of the figu- 
rative sense have been given in the preceding part of this work. 
But as it is usual to separate the present topic, and subject it to an 
independent investigation, we now do the same. In reality it is 
somewhat peculiar and unique. Indeed its very importance would 
seem to justify a distinct treatment. 

Generally speaking, we employ the same means both for dis- 
covering tropical language and interpreting it. Figures are ex- 
plained by the aid of the principles which serve to render them ap- 
parent. The materials used in both processes are the same, and 
both are commonly done together. As soon as the tropical sense 
is discovered, it is interpreted by means of corresponding and ap- 
propriate terms. We take both together. 



Figurative Language. 391 

Whether a word or expression be figurative or proper, and what 
sense it bears, is determined, 

I. By the adjuncts united with it. If it be the subject of a pro- 
position the predicate may determine it, or vice versa. Thus the tro- 
pical sense must be taken where the subject and predicate are 
heterogeneous or opposite in their nature, as for example, where 
the one is animated, the other inanimate ; the one material, the other 
not ; the one rational, the other irrational. 

" The valleys shout for joy ; they also sing" (Psal. lxv. 13.). 

Here the subject is an inanimate thing, whereas the predicate 
involves the act of a living being. Hence the verbs shout and sing 
are tropical. 

" Hear this word, ye kine of Bashan, that are in the mountain 
of Samaria" (Amos iv. 1.). 

The princes and leaders of Israel are so styled because they were 
fat, well fed, luxurious, prepared for destruction. 

" I am the door" (John x. 9.). 

Christ is the medium of access to the divine favour and eternal 
life. 

" And that rock was Christ" (1 Cor. x. 4.). 

In like manner adjuncts, adverbs, epithets which limit and deter- 
mine the nature or mode of the subject, serve the purpose of dis- 
covering tropical language and explaining it. 

Thus "the Avells of salvation" (Isa. xii. 3.). Here wells is inter- 
preted by of salvation ; sources of spiritual life and comfort. 

" Circumcision of the heart" (Rom. ii. 29.), i. e. new and spiritual 
motives, purposes, emotions, desires, defilement and impurity being 
removed. 

"Born again" (John iii. 3.); regeneration, renewal of the inward 
nature. 

" Risen with Christ" (Coloss. iii. 1.) ; habitual exaltation of the 
soul in sympathy with the purposes and operation of Christ. 

The epithets fxovoyevrjs and iBios joined with vios, meaning the 
Son of God, are also indicative of something tropical in the sense, 
though from the peculiarity of the nature belonging to the Saviour 
it is very difficult to define the exact idea intended. 

II. The general context determines words and phrases to be tro- 
pical. 

" Behold I will melt them and try them" (Jer. ix. 7.). 

Here the latter verb explains the former. 

" Deep calleth unto deep at the noise of thy waterspouts ; all 
thy waves and thy billows are gone over to me" (Psal. xlii. 7.). 

This language is determined to be figurative by the fifth and sixth 
verses. The soul of the speaker is overwhelmed with deep dis- 
tresses ; troubles upon troubles sink his spirit downward. 

" Because thou sayest, I am rich and increased with goods, and 
have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, 
and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked" (Rev. iii. 17.). 

The following verse shows this to be tropical, referring to a state 
of the soul, to spiritual destitution. 

c c 4 



392 Biblical Interpretation. 

III. Parallels. 

In different passages, different terms are employed to express the 
same idea. This facilitates the distinction between tropical and 
proper. In the parallel passage or passages, the same thing may 
be expressed properly or literally ; or the same word occurs in a 
connection which indicates its meaning. 

" I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matt. x. 34.). 

Here sword is ascertained to be tropical by the parallel in 
Luke xii. 51., where division is used. 

Context is of much greater service than parallels in pointing out 
and interpreting tropical words and phrases. A general acquaint- 
ance with the philosophy of language and a careful consideration of 
the context are in most cases sufficient. Parallels will not con- 
tribute much aid. The chief reason of this is the difficulty of know^ 
ing and applying what are really parallel, in which process an 
amount of interpretation is involved by no means inconsiderable. 
One figurative expression is usually insufficient to explain another 
figurative one ; and should the same thing expressed properly and 
literally be selected, the very selection implies an explanation of 
the phrase to which it is termed a parallel. 

From single terms and phrases we pass to sentences, sections, 
paragraphs, and apply to them the usual means of elucidation. Here 
difficulty arises. In the case of words or single expressions there 
is little doubt or ambiguity when they are viewed in connection 
with the place in which they occur. They are at once discovered 
to be tropical, and may be explained by appropriate corresponding 
terms without difficulty. But when the field is enlarged, and in 
proportion as it is so, perplexity is felt. Figurative sentences are 
sometimes difficult, figurative paragraphs are more so ; entire books 
poetical, prophetic, symbolical, place great difficulties in the path 
of an expositor. Hence the numerous and conflicting opinions of 
able and accomplished interpreters respecting those parts of the 
Bible in which tropical language abounds. Not only do they differ 
in many instances as to the true sense of figurative passages, but 
even in regard to the fact itself, whether they are literal or figu- 
rative. When therefore we look at the whole subject in all its 
extent and obscurity, we feel that general rules and principles of 
exposition are either less useful in it than in other departments, or 
that they have been . less regarded. Perhaps both have happened. 
There is a class of readers who in perusing the Bible systematically 
despise general canons of interpretation. They take texts or chap- 
ters by themselves, and look no farther. With narrow vision they 
inspect verses and sentences singly. It is not surprising, therefore, 
that they fail egregiously. Incapable as they are of taking a com- 
prehensive view, or unwilling at least to do so, they derive singular 
fancies from the pages of Scripture, which they dignify with the 
name of Bible truth. They feel the force of few difficulties, because 
they are really ignorant of their existence, and also because they, 
have a miracle at hand to which they have recourse in any emergency. 
We do not wonder that such unsystematic, unphilosophical ex- 






Figurative Language. 393 

positors, misunderstand the prophecies as they do, and become dog- 
matical in their assertions. Dogmatism is not the child of learning 
and knowledge. Yet we are free to confess at the same time, that 
all our principles and canons are insufficient to afford that security 
in the interpretation of figurative language which we should desire 
to possess. That they are of signal benefit is unquestionable. That 
they contribute much to the understanding of Scripture cannot be 
fairly denied. But the very nature of figurative diction, especially 
as applied to spiritual subjects or abstract truths, involves peculiar 
obscurities. We cannot attain exactness in the illustration of many 
figures, or a high degree of probability in the elucidation of poetic 
and prophetic passages. 

The means by which sentences and sections are known to be 
tropical are the context immediate or remote, and parallels. 

I. Context. 

" Why should ye be stricken any more ? Ye will revolt more 
and more. The whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint. 
From the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness 
in it, but wounds, and bruises, and putrifying sores : they have not 
been closed, neither bound up, neither mollified with ointment." 
(Isa. i. 5, 6.) This language, descriptive of the Jewish people, is 
tropical, as is shown by the preceding and succeeding context. 

In Isaiah xi. 6 — 8. the context shows that the description of 
Messiah's reign, or rather the effects of it, is tropical. It is pre- 
ceded by language of this character in the fourth and fifth verses. 
It is also succeeded by expressions which are meant as a brief ex- 
planation without figure : " they (men generally) shall not hurt nor 
destroy in all my holy mountain : for the earth shall be full of the 
knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." Even ad- 
mitting, which is not likely, that the subjects to the verbs hurt and 
destroy are the animals before mentioned, the last clause of the verse 
evinces the figurative nature of the description ; for it asserts that 
the extension of the knowledge of the Lord is the cause of the 
remarkable changes mentioned. Hence the changes are moral, 
wrought upon men, not on the irrational creation, because men alone 
are capable of knowing and serving Jehovah. 

In Revelation xx. 4, 5. is a description of the first resurrection. 
The introductory context indicates that it is figurative, not literal. 
Thus John is represented as seeing an angel come clown from heaven 
having a key and a great chain in his hand ; laying hold of the 
dragon and binding him; casting him into the bottomless pit; 
shutting him up; setting a seal upon him. Here it is obvious 
that a real key, seal, &c, are not to be understood. Hence the de- 
scription of the first resurrection should be taken in a figurative and 
spiritual, not a material and literal sense. 

IL Parallels. 

Acts xv. 14 — 17. These words of Amos show that the original 
must not be taken in a literal, but figurative acceptation. The 
family of David is not to be literally restored to the throne of Judea, 
as a superficial reader might suppose. The spiritual dominion of 



394 Biblical Interpretation. 

Christ with reference to the conversion of the Gentiles is designated. 
The expressions respecting the rebuilding of David's tabernacle and 
setting it up again are figurative, not literal. 

The analogy of faith taken in its wide sense will sometimes lead 
to the determination of the tropical as distinct from the literal ac- 
ceptation of passages. When the general tenor of Scripture doc- 
trine is known, it may be applied as a test for this purpose. 

After discovering tropical diction, the next thing is to explain it. 
This is effected by the same means and in the same manner. The 
nature of the subject, the context, the general and particular scope, 
parallel passages, the analogy of faith, contribute to this end. Here 
the most difficult problem lies before the interpreter. He enters 
now on most delicate and debatable ground, where his powers are 
tasked to the utmost. The highest moral and intellectual qualifica- 
tions are called into requisition. Imagination, guided and controlled 
by sound judgment, exalted sympathy with the great purposes of 
God revealed in the Bible respecting the glorification of Himself in 
man's redemption, strong faith, extensive knowledge of sacred things 
in their various bearings, experience in exegesis, caution, circumspec- 
tion, are imperatively demanded in him who would be successful 
They are necessary in all parts of the science ; most necessary in 
this practical part of it. 

The foundation of tropes is similitude or conjunction, a resemblance 
real or supposed between two things. This mutual relation is divided 
by Moras into physical and intellectual. 1 To the former belongs the 
container for the contained, a part for the whole, as a cup for the wine 
in it, Jlesh for the whole body, &c. The latter, i. e. intellectual or 
ideal junction, is when the cause is put for the effect or vice versa, 
the sign for the thing signified. The distinction made by Morus is 
virtually useless in practice. In all figures there is a point, or 
points, of agreement between the subject from which a comparison 
is taken and the thing described. It matters not whether the simi- 
larity be real or ideal ; whether it exists in fact or merely in the 
imagination of the writer. It is sufficient to know that such analogy 
lies at the basis of every figure. Two things are supposed to agree 
in some quality or qualities, which have been called the tertium com- 
parationis, the mutual features of that from which the trope is taken 
and the thing described. 

As an example Ave may refer to spiritual idolatry, the moral and 
mental attachment to certain things of which the Scriptures fre- 
quently speak. This is termed adultery in the Bible. Here the 
points of agreement are infidelity and deceit. 

Now it will be seen, that a knowledge of this similitude must often 
depend upon a knowledge of the things from which it is derived, and 
the ideas attached to them in the East, the countries of the Bible. 
The inhabitants of the East have far livelier imaginations than ours. 
In the exercise of such imaginations their comparisons appear to us 
far-fetched, extravagant, hyperbolical. By the aid of them they 

1 Hermeneutica, vol. i. p. 261. 






Metonymies. 395 

bring together for comparison- things which appear to us to present 
no analogy. Their mental habits were very different from ours. 
And not only so, but their outward habits and modes of life were 
dissimilar. Things familiar to them are unknown to us. What 
they esteemed useful and looked upon as honourable, may be dif- 
ferently regarded by us. Those which are mean and contemptible 
in the West, were commended by them. Hence we should not 
transfer our ideas to things which they viewed according to the 
genius of a remote age and the diverse circumstances necessarily 
belonging to it. It is obvious that there must be a wide difference 
between the metaphorical expressions of the Jews and those current 
among us ; and therefore theirs may often seem to convey another 
idea than what we are wont to entertain, one which is even harsh 
and repulsive. Accordingly, biblical tropes taken from certain 
animals, though they may appear degrading to us, are truly dignified 
and honourable as originally meant. They are adapted to the senti- 
ments of those for whom they were at first written. Thus Issachar 
is compared to a strong ass. Joseph's beauty is celebrated as that 
of a first-born bullock. Judah is compared to a lion's whelp. These 
and similar comparisons are honourable. So far from being mean 
and degrading, they are expressive of dignity. Oxen and asses were 
not the same in size, strength, shape, and habits in the East, as they 
are among us ; and it was not reckoned disgraceful to be compared 
with them. Kings and princes rode on asses. It will therefore be 
proper to carry along with us a knowledge of the objects whence the 
biblical writers derive metaphors, as well as the peculiar ideas pre- 
vailing among the people to whom the Scriptures were at first ad- 
dressed, lest we substitute our own notions for theirs, or at least 
ingraft them upon theirs ; and instead of contemplating the things 
that passed before them from their point of view take our own stand- 
point, from which they will assume a new attitude. 

What then is the great object of the interpreter, who desires to 
explain figurative language ? It is to find out the tertium compara- 
tionis, the points of similitude which the sacred writers meant to set 
forth. There may be, and often are, various points of comparison ; 
and the danger is of making them fewer or more numerous than they 
should be. The business of the expositor is to exhibit just those 
analogies which are intended ; to attain the true medium between 
deficiency on the one hand, and excess of similitude on the other. 
It is his province to set forth the particular idea or ideas conveyed 
by tropical diction. 



CHAP. II. 

ON THE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE METONYMIES OCCURRING IN THE 
SCRIPTURES. 

Metonymy is a trope in which one name is substituted for another, 
as the cause for the effect, and vice versa; the subject for the adjunct, 



396 Biblical Interpretation. 

and the contrary. Hence, according to Glassius 1 , there are four" 
species of metonymy, viz. a metonymy of the cause, of the effect, 
of the subject, and of the adjunct. 

METONYMY OF THE CAUSE. 

Metonymy of the cause takes place in a threefold manner, — when 
a person acting is put for the thing done, when the instrument is put 
for the thing done by it, and when a thing or action is put for the 
effect produced. Let us exemplify these respectively. 

(«.) The person acting for the thing done. 

Parents and ancestors are put for sons and posterity. Thus Shem 
and Japheth are put for their posterity (Gen. ix. 27.); Jacob and 
Israel for the people generally (Exod. v. 2. ; Numb, xxiii. 21., xxiv. 5. 
17.). Obed-Edom is put for his posterity (2 Chron. xxv. 24.), who 
were porters, and keepers of the sacred treasures. 

A writer is put for his work or book. So in Luke xvi. 29., 
" They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them." Examples 
also occur in Luke xxiv. 27. ; Acts xv. 21., xxi. 21. ; 2 Cor. iii. 15. 

(b.) The cause or instrument is put for the thing effected by it. 

Thus the mouth, the tongue, the lip or lips, are put for speech 
(Deut. xvii. 6.; Matt, xviii. 16.; Psal. v. 10., Gen. xi. 1.; Prov. 
xii. 19.). The palate also stands for speech or words in Prov. v. 3. 
The throat is put for strong-speaking in Isa. lviii. 1. : " Cry with the 
throat." 

The hand is put for the writing done by it (1 Cor. xvi. 21.; 
Col. iv. 18.). 

The sword is put for war or slaughter effected by it (Exod. v. 3.). 

The word rope, 730, is put for the territory or field measured by it, 
as Joshua xvii. 14., xix. 9. 

Silver is put for the thing compared to silver (Ex. xxi. 21.). 

(e.) The thing or action, instead of the effect arising from that 
thing, or produced by that action. Thus fir-trees are put for arms 
or lances made of that wood (Nahum ii. 4.), brass for brazen fetters 
(Lament, iii. 7.), gold and silver for things made out of them (1 Chron. 
xxix. 2.). 2 

METONYMY OF THE EFFECT. 

The effect is often put for the cause, which is the opposite of the 
preceding. Thus God is termed thy life and the length of thy days, 
i. e. the cause or author of life and longevity (Deut. xxx. 20.). The 
God of patience and consolation, i. e. the author of these qualities in 
believers. So Christ is called the way, the truth, the life (John 
xiv. 6.). Faith is called our " victory which overcomes the world," 
i. e. the instrument of victory. " This is the condemnation " (John 
iii. 19.), i. e. the cause of the condemnation. " Is the law sin? " (Rom. 
vii. 7.), that is, the cause of sin. 3 

1 Philologia Sacra, ed. Dathe, p. 814. 2 Ibid. p. 815. et seqq. 

2 Ibid. p. 839. et seqq. 



Metonymies. 397 



METONYMY OF THE SUBJECT. 



(a.) Sometimes the subject is put for the adjunct. 

The heart is put for understanding or wisdom (Prov. vi. 32. ? 
vii. 7.). The heart and the reins stand for the inmost thoughts, de- 
sires, and affections (Psal. lxxiii. 21., li. 8.). The old and the new 
man denote different states or conditions of the same man (Rom. vi. 
6.; 2 Cor. v. 17.). 

(b.) Sometimes the container is put for the contained, and the 
place for what is placed. 

A basket or canister is put for the bread or food carried in it 
(Deut. xxviii. 5.). A house stands for the inhabitants of it (Gen. 
vii. 1.); a horse for the things carried by that animal (1 Kings x. 
28.); islands for their inhabitants (Isa. xli. 1. 5.); a table for the 
meat placed on it (Psal. xxiii. 5.); a mountain for things or persons 
upon it (Josh. xiii. 6. ; Jer. iii. 23.) ; the world for its inhabitants 
(Johniii. 16.); a nest for the young birds in it (Deut. xxxii. 11.); 
a cup for the drink or wine in it (Jer. xlix. 12.); a sepulchre for 
those buried in it (Isa. xxxviii. 18.). 

(c.) The possessor is put for the thing possessed. 

To possess nations greater and mightier than thyself (Deut. ix. 1.), 
i. e. the region occupied by nations, &c. 

(d.) Sometimes the object is put for that which is conversant 
about it. 

A burden stands for a prophecy respecting divine punishment 
(Isa. xxi. 1.). Sin is put for the sacrifice offered for the expiation 
of sin (Exod. xxix. 14.). 

(e.) The thing signified is put for the sign. 

Thus desolation denotes a mourning garment, the symbol of it 
(Ezek. vii. 27.). Redemption means the sign of redemption (Exod. 
viii. 23.). • 



METONYMY OF THE ADJUNCT. 



(a.) Sometimes the accident of, or what is additional to, a thing, is 
put for its subject in kind. 

Thus the abstract stands for its concrete (Gen. xxxi. 3.). A 
shield stands for a soldier shielded (Ezek. xxvi. 8.) ; power for an 
array, or for military forces (Exod. xiv. 4.) ; light and darkness for 
the enlightened and the ignorant (Ephes. v. 8.). 

(Z>.) Sometimes the thing contained is put for the thing containing 
it, and a thing placed for the place itself. 

" This stone which I have set for a pillar shall be God's house " 
(Gen. xxviii. 22.), i. e. this place on which I have set up a pillar of 
stone shall be, &c. Springs of water (Josh. xv. 19.) denote a por- 
tion of land in which springs of water exist. " And when they had 
opened their treasures" (Matt. ii. 11.), i. e. the vessels containing 
them. 

(c.) Time is put for the things done or happening in time. 

This is to be understood both of the word time, and of the nouns 

1 Philologia Sacra, ed. Dathe, p. 849. et seqq. 



398 Biblical Interpretation. 

which express parts of time, whether divided by nature or by man's 
appointment. Days are said to be good or evil according to the events 
which happen in them (Gen. xlvii. 9. ; Eccles. vii. 10.). 

(d.) The opinions of men are put for things themselves. Things 
are described as they appeared and were thought of, not as they 
really were. In Ezek. xxi. 3. the righteous means him who seemed 
to be righteous. See too Matt. ix. 13. " The foolishness of preach- 
ing" (1 Cor. i. 21.), because the preaching of the gospel was thought 
to be such by many. " I wonder that ye are so soon removed to 
another gospel" (Gal. i. 6.), i.e. false teaching is called another 
gospel. " His enemies shall lick the dust " (Psal. lxxii. 9.), i. e. 
appear to do so because of their being prostrate on the ground. The 
expressions denote utter subjugation. 

(<?.) Sometimes an action or affection conversant with or employed 
about any object is put for the object itself. 

Thus the senses are put for the objects perceived by them, as 
hearing for doctrine or speech (Isa. xxviii. 9., liii. 1.). A/cotf in 
John xii. 38., Rom. x. 16., Gal. iii. 2. 5., literally hearing, signifies 
report or speech. So the eye, pj?, stands for the colour seen by the 
eyes (Numb. xi. 7.; Lev. xiii. 55.; Pro v. xxiii. 31.; Ezek. i. 4., 
viii. 2., x. 9.). Faith denotes the doctrine received and believed, 
i. e. its object (Acts vi. 7. ; Gal. i. 23.). Hope, signifying the object 
of itself, means God (Psal. lxxi. 5. ; Jer. xiv. 8.). It means Christ 
(Acts xxviii. 20. ; Col. i. 27. ; 1 Tim. i. 1.). Love stands for the 
person or thing loved (Jer. ii. 33., xii. 7.). In like manner desire 
stands for the person or thing desired (Ezek. xxiv. 16. 21.). Fear is 
also put for the objects feared (Psal. liii. 6. ; Prov. i. 26.). 

(_/! ) The sign is put for the thing signified. 

Thus sceptre, crown or diadem, throne, stands for regal authority or 
power (Gen. xlix. 10. ; Isa. xiv. 5. ; Psal. lxxxix. 5. ; Ezek. xxi. 26.). 
War is denoted by the bow, spear, chariot, sword, &c. (Psal. xlvi. 9. ; 
Ezek. xxi. 3, 4.). To open and shut, none opposing, denotes the 
possession of full and free power to administer any thing (Isa. xxii. 
22.). To lift up the eyes is to worship and pray (Psal. cxxi. 1., 
cxxiii. 1.). To bow the knees is to worship (Isa. xiv. 23. ; Phil, 
ii. 10. ; Ephes.iii. 14.). To give the hand, or to strike hands, signi- 
fies voluntary subjection, supplication, swearing, joining in covenant, 
becoming surety for another (1 Chron. xxix. 24. ; 2 Chron. xxx. 8. ; 
Lam. v. 6. ; Job xvii. 3. ; Gal. ii. 9.). 

(y.) The name is sometimes put for the person or thing named. 

The name of God denotes God himself (Deut. xxviii. 58. ; Psal. 
xx. 2.). Name stands for person (Acts i. 15. ; Rev. iii. 4., xi. 13.). 
It stands for the thing itself (Acts iv. 12.; Ephes. i. 21.; Phil, 
ii. 9.). 1 

1 Philologia Sacra, ed. Dathe, p. 870. et seqq. 



Metaphors. 399 

CHAP. III. 

ON THE INTERPRETATION OP SCRIPTURE METAPHORS. 

According to the definition of Glassius, a metaphor is a trope by 
which a word is transferred from its proper signification to another 
cognate one, on account of a similitude between them. 1 It is founded 
on the resemblance which one object bears to another. Hence it is 
allied to simile or comparison. It is a comparison expressed in an 
abridged form. 

The chief thing to be attended to in the metaphor is the medium 
comparationis, or resemblance which lies at the foundation of it. 

The sources of Scripture metaphors may be classed under five 
heads, viz., natural, artificial, sacred, historical, and fabulous. 

1. Metaphors are taken from natural objects more frequently 
than from any other source. 

Thus the images of light and darkness are commonly employed in 
all languages to denote prosperity and adversity. But the Hebrews 
make use of them more frequently, and with less variation, than 
other peoples. (See Isa. xiii. 10., lix. 9., lx. 19, 20.). In many 
cases light comprehends both outward and inward illumination, pro- 
sperity accompanied with knowledge and joy ; while darkness in the 
same manner includes outward calamity and internal blindness or 
ignorance. They are so used in Isa. ix. 1. ; Matt. iv. 16. 

In eastern countries, with their peculiar climate so different 
from ours in Great Britain, rain, dew, rivers, springs, are exceedingly 
grateful. In consequence of the prevailing dryness and heat, the 
ground becomes parched ; the grass and flowers wither and decay. 
Hence a variety of metaphors is taken from these objects to repre- 
sent blessings and favours. Moderate rains or copious showers, 
gentle streams and flowing springs, running waters, nightly dews, 
denote spiritual blessings descending from the Father of Spirits. 
(See Hosea vi. 3. ; Isa. xxvi. 19., xxvii. 3., xliv. 3., xxxv. 1. 6, 7., 
xli. 18.) On the contrary, sudden and great calamities are expressed 
by a deluge of waters. This metaphor was immediately taken from 
the nature and state of the country. The river Jordan, which 
annually overflowed its banks in some places, not in all, was imme- 
diately before the Hebrews' eyes. The country generally, being 
chiefly mountainous, was exposed to frequent floods rushing with 
violence along the valleys and narrow defiles, after tempests of rain 
which took place periodically. But Lowth is mistaken in supposing 
that the prophet (David) " seems to have depicted the face of nature 
exactly as it appeared to him, and to have adapted it to the figu- 
rative description of his own situation, when from the banks of 
Jordan, and the mountains at the head of that river, he pours forth 

1 Philologia Sacra, ed. Dathe, p. 916. 



400 Biblical Interpretation. 

the tempestuous violence of his sorrow with a force of language 
and an energy of expression which has seldom been equalled : 

Deep calleth unto deep, at the noise of thy waterspouts. 

All thy waves and thy billows are gone over me. (Psalm xlii. 7.) " ' 

David cannot allude here to the waterfalls of Lebanon, for the 
word rendered waterspouts never denotes cataracts or waterfalls; 
and besides, the preceding context (verse 6.) describes the country 
east of Jordan or Pera?a. Desolating and destroying enemies are 
compared to overflowing rivers, inundations, or torrents, in Ezek. 
xxvi. 3, 19., xxvii. 26. 

Plants and trees are particularly used as the sources of metaphori- 
cal expressions, so that Michaelis asserts that Hebrew poetry might 
be almost called the botanical poetry. 2 

There is a species of metaphor derived from natural objects, 
altogether peculiar to the Hebrews. Among the mountains of Pa- 
lestine the two most remarkable are Lebanon and Carmel. Each 
suggests a different general image according to their respective forms, 
aspects, and features. This image the Hebrew poets adopt for 
different purposes. Thus Lebanon is used for the whole state of the 
Jews, or for the state of the church, for the temple, even for the 
king of Assyria and his army ; in a word, for whatever is remarkable, 
august, and sublime. 

In a similar manner, whatever possesses much fertility, wealth, or 
beauty, is called Carmel. So too insolent and cruel tyrants of the 
Gentiles are denoted by the fat rams, heifers, and bulls of Bashan ; 
by the wild beast of the reeds, or the lion of Jordan. 3 

In respect to the derivation of its imagery from natural objects 
all poetry is alike, though the Hebrews took their metaphors from 
this source in greater abundance than other nations. Hence the 
natural histoi'y of the country of Judea in connection with the situ- 
ation and habits of the writers should be well known to the inter- 
preter of the Old Testament books. 

2. The Hebrews derived many metaphors from arts, manners, and 
common life. 

The whole course and method of common or domestic life among 
the more ancient Hebrews was simple and uniform. That vai'iety 
of studies and pursuits, of arts, conditions, and employments observ- 
able among other nations, did not exist among them. Separated 
from the rest of mankind, and not addicted to commerce, they were 
contented with such arts as were necessary to a simple state of life. 
Thus their principal employments were agriculture and the care of 
cattle. The lands had been originally parcelled out to the different 
families, and could not be alienated by sale. The produce of each 
man's hand and labour constituted the wealth of each. Hence the 
Hebrew writers derive most of their metaphors from those arts in 
which they were brought up from their earliest years. 

Thus from one thing, the barn or the threshing-floor, an object 

1 Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, vi. p. 55. ed. Stowe, Andover, 1829. 

2 Notes to Lowth, p. 339. ed. Stowe. 3 See Lowth, p. 56. 



Scripture Mctaphcis. 401 

which some might reckon low and mean, sublime images are taken. 
" Jehovah threshes out the heathen as corn, tramples them under his 
feet, and disperses them. He delivers the nations to Israel to be 
beaten in pieces by an indented flail, or to be crushed by their 
brazen hoofs. He scatters their enemies like chaff upon the moun- 
tains, and disperses them with the whirlwind of his indignation." 
Here belongs the sublime delineation of the divine vengeance 
expressed by imagery taken from the winepress. Isaiah depicts 
Jehovah or the Messiah coming to take vengeance on his enemies ; 
and similar metaphors are used by other sacred poets. 1 

Nor are pastoral images confined to the Old Testament. They 
are numerous in the New also. Thus the world is compared to a 
field ; the children of the kingdom or believers are the wheat ; the 
children of the evil one are tares. (Matt. xiii. 38.) The seed sown 
is the word. A preacher is the sower. The heart of man is the 
ground. The thorns are the care of this world and the deceitfulness 
of riches. The harvest is the end of the world. The reapers are the 
angels. The church is God's husbandry. Apostles and others are 
fellow-labourers with God. The wicked are stubble. Repentance 
and resolution of amendment are ploughing and breaking up the 
fallow ground. (Matt, xiii. 38, 39.; Mark. iv. 14. &c; Matt. xiii. 3.; 
Luke viii. 14, 15. ; 1 Cor. iii. 9. ; Isa. xlvii. 14. ; Hosea x. 12.) 

3. Metaphors derived from the rites and ceremonies of religion. 

The religion of the Hebrews embraced a very extensive circle of 
divine and human economy. It not only included all that regarded 
the worship of God, but extended to the regulation of the state, the 
ratification of the laws, the forms and administration of justice, and 
almost all the relations of civil and domestic life. The state and the 
church were coextensive. 

Many metaphors were derived from the system of Hebrew rites 
with all their splendour and magnificence, especially after the build- 
ing of Solomon's temple. From one thing, viz. the priest's magni- 
ficent attire and ornaments, a variety of appropriate imagery was 
borrowed. Isaiah has a beautiful example of this kind. 

I will greatly rejoice in the Lord. 

My soul shall be joyful in my God : 

For he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation, 

He hath covered me with the robe of righteousness; 

As a bridegroom decketh himself with ornaments, 

And as a bride adorneth herself with her jewels. (Isa. lxi. 10.) 

Here the prophet describes the church in her universality and glory. 
He decorates her with the vestments of salvation, and clothes her 
in the robe of righteousness. He then compares her to a bride- 
groom dressed for marriage, employing a term taken from the apparel 
of the priests. Jehovah himself is introduced by the Psalmist as 
"clothed with glory and strength;" he is "girded with power;" 
which are the terms appropriated to describe the dress and orna- 
ments of the priests. The angels are clothed like priests. (Ezek. 
ix. 3., Dan. x. 5.) 2 

1 See Lowtli, Lecture vii. pp. 5S, 59. 2 Ibid. Lecture viii. 

VOL. II. D D 



402 Biblical Interpretation. 

Much of the Jewish law is employed in discriminating between 
things clean and unclean ; in removing and making atonement for 
things polluted or proscribed ; under which ceremonies a meaning 
the most important and sacred is concealed. Among the rest are 
certain diseases and infirmities of the body, and some customs 
indifferent in themselves, but important when the reasons of them are 
properly ascertained. Accordingly the sacred poets have recourse 
to these topics for imagery, as when they set forth the depravity of 
the human heart, or censure the corrupt manners of the people, or 
deplore the abject state of the virgin daughter of Sion, polluted and 
exposed. (Isa. lxiv. 6., i. 5, 6. 16.; Ezek. xxxvi. 17.; Lam. i. 8, 9. 
17., ii. 2. ) " If," says Lowtn, " we consider these metaphors without 
any reference to the religion of their authors, they will doubtless 
appear in some degree disgusting and inelegant ; if we refer them to 
their genuine source, to the peculiar rites of the Hebrews, they 
will be found wanting neither in force nor in dignity." 1 

4. The Hebrews derived many metaphors from remarkable trans- 
actions recorded in the sacred history. 

Thus the destruction of Israel is depicted by a return to ancient 
chaos (Jer. iv. 23 — 26.). So too Isa. (xxxiv. 11.). The same event 
is sometimes expressed in metaphors suggested by the universal 
deluge (Isa. xxiv. 18 — 20.), and also the destruction of Sodom and 
Gomorrah (Isa. xxxiv. 9, 10.). 

The emigration of the Israelites from Egypt is applied in a meta- 
phorical manner to many events which bear some resemblance to it. 
It represents deliverance, assistance, liberty, and security. (Isa. xliii. 
16—19., xlviii. 21., Ii. 9, 10.) In the New Testament the Christian 
redemption is described metaphorically by allusions to this same event. 

The Apocalypse is full of imagery of this nature. Egypt, Sodom, 
Jerusalem, Babylon, a new Gog and Magog, reappear there. 2 

5. Some metaphors are derived from poetic fable. 

The cherubim of the Hebrews are of this nature. They are 
allegoric il figures, not real existences, as is clearly deducible from 
the various descriptions given of them in the Old Testament. Such 
imagery is adopted in condescension to our feeble apprehension as 
creatures of sense, to give us some ideas of the glories of the invisible 
world and the inexpressible majesty of Jehovah. Cherubim support 
Jehovah's throne, and bear his chariot when he rides in the clouds. 
(Psalm xviii. 11.; Ezek. i. 10., x. 14.; Revel, iv. 6.) The seraphim, 
beings mentioned but once, are similar. (Isa. vi. 2.) We also find 
some malicious beings introduced by the prophets, Avhich are probably 
fabulous. Thus Isaiah mentions Satyrs, mischievous fiends, with 
heads and breasts like men and the lower parts like goats, who are 
supposed by the orientals to inhabit the woods and solitary places, 
amusing themselves by dancing and shrieking; who mislead travellers, 
murder them, and devour their flesh. 3 

1 Lectures, p. 63. 2 Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, Lecture ix. 

8 Compare the Notes of Michaelis and Stowe on Lowth, p. 362. et seqq. 



Anthropopathy and Personification. 403 

CHAP. IV. 

ANTHROPOPATHY AND PERSONIFICATION. 

We have reserved to this place the metaphor anthropopathy, although 
it might have been noticed under the class of metaphors derived from 
natural objects, because it requires a more extended description. In 
it things belonging to creatures and especially man, are ascribed to 
the Deity. This manner of speaking is employed in condescension 
to our weak apprehensions, which cannot form a proper idea of God 
in his abstract nature as pure spirit existing every where throughout 
the universe. 

In the consideration of anthropopathies we must carefully adhere 
to the following canon. 

Whatever things are transferred from the creatures to God must 
be purged of all imperfection and limitation, and their concentrated 
excellence alone attributed to Him. 

Thus when the parts and members of the human body are ascribed 
to Him, we must only understand such qualities in perfection as 
those parts and members in our frame are the instruments of. The 
face or countenance is his manifestation (Psal. xxxiv. 16.). His eyes 
are his most exact knowledge (Psal. xi. 4. ; Job xxxiv. 21.; Heb. iv. 
13.). They also represent his watchfulness and supervision (Psal. 
xxxii. 8. ; Deut. xi. 12.). Ears are also attributed to him, signifying 
gracious acceptance of prayer (Psal. xxxi. 3.), or the exact notice he 
takes of the sins of others (James v. 4.). By his mouth we are to un- 
derstand the expression of his will (Josh. ix. 14. ; 1 Sam. xv. 24.). 
His arm denotes power and strength (Exod. xv. 16., Job xl. 4.). In 
like manner we read of his right hand, his fingers (Exod. xv. 6. ; 
Psal. viii. 3.). Feet denote his omnipresence, as well as his operation 
in destroying enemies (Psal. lxxiv. 3., ex. 1. ; Lament, iii. 34.). 
Bowels denote his compassion (Isa. lxiii. 15. ; Jer. xxxi. 20.). 1 

When human affections are attributed to Him, they must be freed 
from all imperfection which belongs to them in man, from all pertur- 
bation and limitation, and assigned to him in an infinitely pure and 
holy state. Thus when anger, vengeance, hatred, joy, grief, repent- 
ance are predicated of him, we must carefully separate from them all 
manner of imperfection. (Jer. ix. 9. ; Nahum i. 2. ; Psal. v. 6. ; Isa. 
i. 14., lxiii. 10. ; Deut. xxviii. 63.; Gen. vi. 6.) With respect to re- 
pentance on the part of God, it does not imply any change of mind 
or purpose. The ideas and purposes of the Most High are immutable. 
" I am the Lord, I change not." (Mai. iii. 6.) His disposition 
towards good and evil continues the same, but varies in its applica- 
tion, as its objects vary. Kepentance intimates no more than that he 
suits his dispensations to the alterations which take place in the 
characters of men. 3 

With a boldness peculiar to the oriental world metaphors taken 

• Glassii Philol. Sacr. ed. Dathe, p. 924 et segq. 2 Ibid. p. 942. et seqq. 

D D 2 



404 Biblical Interpretation. 

from the vices of men are applied even to the Deity. Thus God in 
his anger is compared to a mighty man that shouteth by reason of 
wine. (Psal. lxxviii. 65.) 

In the same manner we must explain all passages in which 
human actions are ascribed to God. Thus he goes down to see what 
is done in Sodom (Gen. xviii. 21.), intimating orderly and just pro- 
cedure in destroying the inhabitants. Coming to a person on His 
part is the manifestation of his favour or of his displeasure. When 
human relations are attributed to him, they express the properties of 
such relations, as when he is called a father, a husband, a king, a 
shepherd. (Psal. ciii. 13., Rom. viii. 15., Isa. liv. 5., Psal. xcv. 3.) 1 

Of the prosopopoeia or personification there are two kinds. One is 
when action and character are attributed to fictitious, irrational, or 
even inanimate objects ; the other, when a probable but fictitious 
speech is assigned to a real character. The former of these is a kind 
of metaphor ; the latter can scarcely be called so. The former is 
a daring figure, and is used very frequently by the Hebrew writers. 
Thus the personification of the divine attribute wisdom is admirably 
introduced in Prov. viii. 22 — 31. In like manner, the divine at- 
tributes are personified in Psal. lxxxv. 10. 

Mercy and truth are met together ; 
Righteousness and peace have kissed each other. 

In the same manner the pestilence is described as marching before 
Jehovah when he is about to punish. (Hab. iii. 5.) Destruction and 
death say of wisdom that her fame only had come to their ears. 
( Job xxviii. 22.) Hades extends her throat and opens her immea- 
surable, insatiable jaws. (Isa. v. 14.) 2 

The second kind of personification is that by which a probable 
though fictitious speech is assigned to a real person. This is, accord- 
ing to Lowth, possessed of great force, evidence, and authority ; 
though it does not excite admiration and approbation like the 
former, by its novelty, boldness, and variety. 

We shall give the example selected by that scholar with his 
remarks. He thinks that it is impossible to produce one more perfect. 
It is expressive of the eager expectation of Sisera's mother. (Judg. 
v. 28—30.) 

The mother of Sisera looked out at a window 
And cried through the lattice, 
Why is his chariot so long in coming? 
Why tarry the wheels of his chariots? 

Here we have a striking picture of maternal solicitude in words 
and actions ; of a mind suspended between hope and fear. 

Her wise ladies answered her. 

Yea, she returned answer to herself, 

Have they not sped ? have they not divided the prey ? 

Impatient of his delay, she anticipates the consolations of her 

1 Glassii Philol. Sacr. ed. Dathe, p. 946. 

2 Lowth's Lectures, xiii. p. 104. et seqq. 



Allegory. 405 

friends, and her mind becoming giddy, she boasts with all the levity 
of a fond female. 

Have they not sped? have they not divided the prey? 

To every man a damsel or two ; 

To Sisera a prey of divers colours ; 

A prey of divers colours of needlework, 

Of divers colours of needlework on both sides? 

Here she takes no account of the slaughter of the enemy, of the 
valour of the conqueror, of the multitude of the captives, but 
Burns with a female thirst of prey and spoils. 

Nothing is omitted which is calculated to attract the passions of a 
vain and trifling woman — slaves, gold, and rich apparel. Nor is she 
satisfied with the bare enumeration of them ; she repeats, she ampli- 
fies, she heightens every circumstance ; she seems to have the very 
plunder in her immediate possession; she pauses and contemplates 
every particular. 1 

The fullest and most wonderful example of the figure is in 
Isa. xiv. 4 — 27., where are examples of almost every form of proso- 
popoeia. Nothing can be more sublime than that short poem. 
Lowth's observations upon it are equally just, appropriate, and 
beautiful. 2 



CHAP. V. 

ALLEGORY. 

The term allegory is variously employed by critics and interpre- 
ters. It has been used very vaguely and loosely. Sometimes an 
allegory is said to be a continued metaphor, as Cicero explains it, in 
which he is followed by Lowth, Blair, and others. According to 
this view, it is difficult to ascertain where metaphor terminates and 
allegory begins. Some would confine the former to a word, and 
then whatever exceeds is an allegory. Lowth enumerates three 
forms of allegory 3 ; but their limits are not well marked. We ap- 
prehend that some confusion would be avoided by attaching the 
same meaning to the word wherever it occurs, and so separating it 
from other figures. In an allegory as in a metaphor two things are 
presented to view. Yet there is a difference between them. " The 
term allegory, says Marsh, according to its original and proper mean- 
ing, denotes — a representation of one thing which is intended to excite 
the representation of another thing. Every allegory therefore must 
be subjected to a twofold examination : we must first examine the 
immediate representation, and then consider what other representation 
it was intended to excite. Now in most allegories, the immediate 
representation is made in the form of a narrative ; and since it is the 

1 Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, p. 107. etseqq. 2 Ibid. pp. 10S— 110. 

3 See Lecture x. 

D D 3 



406 Biblical Interpretation. 

object of an allegory to convey a moral not an historic truth, the nar- 
rative itself is commonly fictitious. The immediate representation is 
of no further value than as it leads to the ultimate representation. 
It is the application or the moral of the allegory which constitutes 
its worth. 

Since, then, an allegory comprehends two distinct representations, 
the interpretation of an allegory must comprehend two distinct opera- 
tions. " The first of them relates to the immediate representation ; 
the second to the ultimate representation." \ 

From this description it appears, that a continuation of metaphors, 
or a prolonged metaphor, never becomes an allegory. In the me- 
taphor there is but one meaning ; in the allegory there are two, a 
literal and a figurative. In the former, the principal object is pro- 
minently presented ; in the latter it is concealed, while the secondary 
is exhibited. The metaphor asserts or supposes that one thing is 
another, as " Judah is a lion's whelp ; " but allegory never affirms 
that one thing is another. 

Examples of allegory commonly given are a succession of meta- 
phors, or even a single comparison. Thus Morus improperly makes 
2 Tim. ii. 20. an allegory ; and in like manner, Matt. xxi. 43. ; John 
vi. 51.; 1 Pet. v. 8. 2 

Allegory has been divided into the pure and impure, or perfect 
and mixed. The former does not mention any part of the principal 
object, but carefully conceals it. This rarely occurs in the Scriptures. 
Most of the Bible allegories are mixed ; and therefore their applica- 
tion is more easily seen, because proper expressions are introduced 
by which the principal object is indicated. The parable of the pro- 
digal son is an example of the pure allegory ; the eightieth Psalm pre- 
sents an instance of the impure or mixed. 

The whole book of Canticles is supposed by many to be an ex- 
tended allegory in which the love existing between Christ and his 
church, or between an individual believer and Christ, is shadowed 
forth under the outward veil of nuptial love. The commencement 
and conclusion of the book furnish no aid in explaining it thus ; and 
all that can be done by the interpreter who takes the view in ques- 
tion is to compare other places where the relation of God to his 
church is described under the figure of connubial love. 

The following observations (they can scarcely be called rules) 
will be serviceable in the interpretation of an allegory proper, or an 
allegory defined as a succession of metaphors. They apply to both ; 
and we shall give examples of both indiscriminately. 

1. The proper or literal meaning, i. e. the immediate representa- 
tion, should first be examined. 

This is, generally speaking, an easy matter. Thus the plain and 
primary meaning of the eightieth Psalm respecting the vine is appa- 
rent. Indeed the propriety and force of the figure depend in a 
great degree on the plainness of the narrative-words that serve as 
the covering of another sense, and at the same convey it. 

1 Lectures on the Interpretation of the Bible, pp. 343, 344. 

2 Acroases, vol i. p. 306. 






Allegory. 407 

2. The context, both that which precedes and follows, should be 
chiefly looked to in the interpretation of allegory. The purpose for 
which it was introduced, or intimations of its import subjoined, com- 
monly suggest the true sense. Thus in verses 2 — 7 of the 80th 
Psalm, the use of the pronoun us and the language of the speakers, 
show th?<t Israel, the ancient church, is represented as uttering a 
lamentation or complaint respecting her condition. Hence we are 
naturally led to think of Israel as the vine pourtrayed. This is 
further and more clearly shoAvn by the termination of the allegory. 
Thus the fifteenth verse : " And protect what thy right hand has 
planted ; and the son thou hast reared for thyself;" where by the son 
is meant the Hebrew nation or church, elsewhere so termed (Exod. 
iv. 22. ; Hosea xi. 1.). But the seventeenth verse is more explicit. 
" Hold thy hand over the man of thy right hand — the son of man 
thou madest strong for thyself." Israel is individualised and called 
the man of God's right hand, because the power of God had been 
remarkably manifested on its behalf. Alexander incorrectly applies 
the words to the Messiah. " Let thy hand fall not on us but on our 
substitute. 1 This is putting something into the text which was not 
intended. 

" In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, 
but also of wood and of earth ; and some to honour, and some to dis- 
honour." (2 Tim. ii. 20.) In the preceding verse the apostle writes, 
" Nevertheless, the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, 
The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, let every one that 
nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity." Here it is 
intimated that the great house signifies the Christian church, in which 
are various classes of Christians, genuine and nominal ones. In the 
twenty-first verse again we read, that if a man has purged himself 
from these, i. e. from vessels of wood and of earth which are to 
dishonour, he himself shall be a vessel unto honour. The false 
teachers and their errors are the vessels here specified. The vessels 
of gold and silver are different classes of Christians. In the external 
Christian church are both Christians and false teachers ; and Timothy 
is encouraged by this fact, while the apostle supposes that he keeps 
himself free from false teachers and their erroneous doctrines. 

Isa. xxviii. 23 — 29. Here is a continued metaphor. The hus- 
bandman wisely suits his method of treatment to the nature of the 
soil he works upon. He sows in particular spots the s,&*Is which 
exactly suit them. He employs the instruments for separating the 
grain from the chaff and straw which are best adapted to accomplish 
the end. If we look to the preceding verses, especially the seven- 
teenth and twenty-second, we shall perceive the general purport of 
this metaphorical language. The concluding verse also assists (29.). 
God adopts such providential modes of procedure towards men as 
are exactly suited to their states. His forbearance is not wholly 
inactive. It is attended with a preparatory process, after which he 
punishes severely or gently according to the capacity and guilt of 
the sinner. 

The Psalms translated and explained, Tol. ii. p. 228. 

D D 4 



408 Biblical Interpretation. 

In Eccles. xii. 2 — 6. we have a succession of metaphors to de- 
scribe the human body in old age. Different parts and members are 
described in different images. The first verse, which introduces the 
description, shows to what it alludes. " Remember now thy Creator 
in the days of thy youth, while the evil days come not, nor the years 
draw nigh when thou shalt say, I have no pleasure in them." 

In John vi. 25 — 65. many things are said respecting the eating of 
bread. The occasion of the discourse about eating and drinking is 
given in the 31st verse: " Our fathers did eat manna in the desert, 
as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat." But 
this explains little, and the metaphors must be taken to explain 
themselves, especially as proper words occur here and there. There 
is little doubt that when Christ styles himself the true bread, the 
living bread, &c, he refers to the great truths respecting himself as the 
Saviour of the world in which the work of redemption mainly consisted 
as appropriated by faith. The spiritual food is not the doctrines of 
Christ ; this is too vague and general ; but the mystery of his 
redemption in which we participate by faith, and so have our souls 
nourished and strengthened — the assimilation to ourselves of the 
truths signified and expressed in his laying down his life on behalf 
of sinners that they might live for ever. 

As the allegories of the Bible are mixed, and the metaphors suc- 
ceeding one another in a passage are also impure, there is frequently 
some word or words which help towards an explanation. But we 
believe that the preceding and following context will prove most 
useful, either by showing the occasion, the scope, the design of the 
figurative passage, or by giving some explanation of it. As to pa- 
rallels they should also be employed wherever it is possible; but 
they will be of little value, because true parallels can scarcely be 
found to such places. 

3. According to Morus, historical circumstances should be con- 
sulted in the explanation of an allegorical passage. 

The same writer gives an example of this from Matt. xiii. 31 — 34., 
where the kingdom of God is likened to a grain of mustard seed, 
which though very small at first, springs up, grows, and becomes a 
large plant. 1 History shows that the church, having arisen from 
small beginnings, is spreading itself throughout the earth. We be- 
lieve that the reader who knows nothing of the history of the church 
except from the Bible itself understands the parable as well as any 
other expositor. The parable is not illustrated by history. 

Another example, which is also said to be illustrated by history, is 
Prov. v. 15 — 18. It is asserted that " the inhabitants of the East 
are accustomed to compare their wives to a cistern or pool whence 
rivers flow." This is questionable. The meaning is sufficiently ap- 
parent from the context ; and the figurative expressions applied to 
connubial enjoyment are not at all illustrated by history. They are 
as plain apart from as in connection with it. The young married 
man is exhorted to confine himself to his own lawful sources of en- 

1 Acroases, vol. i. p. 312. 



Auegory. 409 

Other examples under this head are still more irrelevant, as John 
xxi. 18., which is not an allegory in any sense. 1 

Another rule for the explanation of allegory is, that the nature of 
the thing should be considered. 

Under this head Morus 2 adduces Luke v. 36. : " No man putteth 
a piece of a new garment upon an old ; if otherwise, then both the 
new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new 
agreeth not with the old." Here what precedes throws more light 
on the sense of the metaphorical passage than the nature of the sub- 
ject. The Pharisees had asked Christ why his disciples did not fast. 
He replied in the words quoted, showing that fasting and austerity 
were not adapted to the state of his disciples at that time. He acted 
therefore towards his disciples as men do in the business of ordinary 
life, where things are accommodated to circumstances. 

A more appropriate example occurs in Matt. v. 13. : " Ye are 
the salt of the earth ; but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith 
shall it be salted ? It is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast 
out, and to be trodden under foot of men." Salt has a seasoning, anti- 
septic power ; to which the disciples are compared, because they were 
appointed to make corrupt humanity sound. But should they lose 
the life and character of genuine piety, how could they be re- 
awakened to their true vocation as the teachers and guides of man- 
kind? 3 Even here the connection of the passage is of more use in 
interpreting the metaphorical expressions than any thing else, especially 
when the parallels Mark ix. 50., Col. iv. 6., are taken into account. 

After the context has been carefully used, and other parts of the 
Bible collated, a question of no small importance remains, viz. How 
far should the expositor run a parallel between the circumstances 
mentioned in the figure and the object or objects they were intended 
to depict ? Here the precept has been propounded, 

That comparison should not be extended to all the circumstances of 
the allegory. 

This rule, if it can be called such, is just and proper ; but it is only 
negative and vague. Comparison holds good only to a certain ex- 
tent. A minute parallel was not designed by the sacred writers. 
Each feature should not be insisted on as if it had a corresponding 
counterpart. It is commonly observable, that one fact or principle is 
meant to be illustrated by a lengthened comparison, and that various 
traits are added to fill up the picture. These impart variety and 
ornament to the description, having no separate significancy. They 
are solely subordinate and secondary, serving to give life and fulness to 

1 Moras, vol. i. p. 312. 8 Ibid. p. 313. 

3 As the salt in use in this country is not liable to chemical change from exposure or 
moisture, it has until now been difficult to understand the circumstance alluded to in this 
passage, on which the metaphor is founded, " but if the salt have lost his savour." The 
salt used in the United Kingdom and the north-western countries of Europe is nearly 
pure chloride of sodium, which may easily be dissolved, but never becomes insipid. The 
salt of Syria, however, is chloride of sodium mixed with a large proportion of sulphate of 
lime, a salt not soluble in less than 800 times its weight of water. Hence if the salt of 
Palestine were exposed to rain or dew, the chloride of sodium would be dissolved, and the 
insipid and very slightly soluble sulphate of lime would remain. This gypseous residuum 
is the salt which has lost its savour, to which the description is precisely appropriate. 



410 Biblical Interpretation. 

solely subordinate and secondary, serving to give life and fulness to 
the description. Without them the portrait would be bare and 
rugged. Hence those interpreters who have insisted on each parti- 
cular of an allegory as significant have greatly erred. They have 
indulged in fanciful circumstances alien to the spirit of the passage, 
and so brought Holy Scripture into disrepute. By such procedure, 
the enemies of truth have been encouraged and aided. Let all 
expositors therefore beware of giving scope to their imagination in 
this department of exegesis. 

It is impossible to give any rule which will teach the interpreter 
to know how far the comparison should be extended. It is of no use 
to say, just as far as the inspired writer indicates ; because he does 
not indicate it exactly or definitely. We must therefore be con- 
tented with looking out for the design of the allegory. What fact, 
principle, sentiment, or idea, does the author mean to illustrate? 
What object led to the introduction of the allegory ? Here we 
are brought back to the context. The vicinity will lead to an 
acquaintance with the purport of the comparison. And when that 
is perceived, the interpretation of the whole should be regulated by 
it. Let the main idea guide and modify the general explanation. 

Another rule has been laid down, viz., 

That one part of the allegory should not be explained literally 
and another figuratively. 

Almost all the allegories of Scripture are mixed or impure. They 
contain literal expressions or explanations, as well as figurative ones. 
Hence this precept is almost valueless respecting them. Taking it 
as applicable to a metaphorical passage generally, it is just and 
proper, provided the passage itself be all figurative, without admix- 
ture of other expressions. Thus 1 Cor. iii. 9 — 13. is metaphorical. 
The Apostle Paul and other teachers of religion are compared to 
builders. He himself declares that he laid the foundation, and others 
built upon it. But the materials employed are different. Some put 
gold, silver, marble ; others wood, hay, stubble. The former are pre- 
cious, valuable, firm ; the latter of inferior worth and easily destroyed. 
The building is the Christian church. Some teachers inculcate the 
evangelical doctrine in its true substance and form. Such teachings 
are the gold, silver, precious stone. Others inculcate what is useless 
or erroneous. But the day of the Lord will declare and prove the 
nature of the spiritual superstructure which has been built on the 
sure foundation. It will show clearly whether the doctrines have 
been right, or whether they have been useless and untenable 
dialectics tending to no practical benefit. In the time of danger, 
in the fiery testing process which shall take place, the teacher who 
has promulgated erroneous and trifling doctrines will lose his reward, 
though as a true believer he himself shall be saved. He shall be 
punished by the loss of that reward which he should otherwise have 
obtained. This will be a kind of chastisement upon himself. The 
trial will affect him injuriously. There is no ground for taking 
the fire literally, as the Church of Rome does, applying it to purga- 



Parables. 4 1 1 

tory. The whole passage being metaphorical, the fire should be 
interpreted in accordance with the surrounding context, since no 
intimation appears to the contrary. 






CHAP. VI. 

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE PARABLES. 

The English word parable is derived from the Greek 7rapa{3o\y, 
meaning according to its proper, etymological sense, comparison, 
similitude. It is a comparison taken from things natural to represent 
things spiritual. But although the term properly mean comparison, 
yet it is employed in a more restricted way, and bears various 
senses. It has its original, broad signification in Mark iv. 30. and 
in Heb. xi. 1 9., which becomes more specific in Heb. ix. 9., where it 
is nearly equivalent to symbol or type. It is most frequently used 
in the New Testament for a short discourse or comparison. (See 
Matt. xiii. 24. &c. &c.) It is also employed in the sense of an 
obscure figurative discourse, a dark saying (Matt. xiii. 35.). Hence 
it comes to denote a proverb or sententious saying (Luke iv. 23.). 
The corresponding Hebrew term 7^D bears the same senses, as may 
be seen from the Lexicons of Gesenius. 

Parables may be called historical allegories. They differ from 
allegories only inform. A fictitious narrative is used to represent 
and illustrate what is real. There are usually two representations, 
the one concealing the other. But in the allegory there is an inter- 
pretation of the thing signifying and the thing signified, the quali- 
ties of the first being attributed to the last, and so the two blended 
together instead of being kept distinct, as is the case in the parable. 

The parable differs from the fable. The former moves in the 
spiritual world alone ; the latter in the region of worldly morality. 
Hence the latter, as Trench justly remarks, has no place in the 
icord of God (not the Scripture, as he says) ; for the two apparent 
exceptions (Jud. ix. 8 — 15. and 2 Kings xiv. 9.) belong to men 
speaking from an earthly standing-point. Besides, fables transgress 
the established laws of nature by making inanimate or irrational 
creatures speak and act, which parables never do. 

The parable also differs from the proverb, though there is but one 
word for both in the Hebrew, and the two are often used inter- 
changeably in the Xew Testament. Both indeed rest on a com- 
parison ; but the parable is further carried out and necessarily 
figurative ; while the proverb is only accidentally so. 1 

The use of parables is very ancient. To a rude and ignorant 
people they had peculiar adaptation. Unfitted as the minds of men 
were in the early ages of the world for the reception of abstract 
truth or a right apprehension of reasoning, the parable had advan- 

1 See Trench on the Parables, chap. i. 



412 Biblical Interpretation. 

tages in arresting attention and impressing the mind. They were 
moved by the outward and sensible, rather than the inward. Indeed 
this is the case with the mass of mankind in all ages. The parable 
of Nathan addressed to David is well known. So also is that of the 
woman of Tekoah (2 Sam. xii. 1 — 4., xiv. 1 — 13.). The prophets 
availed themselves of this mode of instruction because of its suit- 
ableness to their purpose. Ezekiel seems to have used it most. It 
was well fitted to excite attention, to be at once understood and felt, 
to allay prejudice by insinuating itself into the mind impercep- 
tibly, to disarm opposition, and to convey reproof in a manner not 
at all disagreeable, but disguised, lively, irresistible. Hence our 
Lord, the great teacher and prophet, availed himself of it. His 
parables excel all others as far as he excelled other prophets, for in 
them we see every quality that combines to produce the highest 
excellence, simplicity, perspicuity, elegance, wisdom, utility. 

Although we have seen that a parable is properly a historical alle- 
gory, and as such might have been treated under that head, especially 
as the method of interpretation is alike, yet it is preferable to con- 
sider it by itself, that it may be more clearly understood. 

According to Bishop Lowth, the first excellence of a parable is, 
that it turns on an image well known and applicable to the subject, 
the meaning of which is clear and definite. 1 

The parables of the prophets correspond to this rule. They are 
founded on such imagery as is frequently used. Examples are found 
in the parable of the deceitful vineyard (Isa. v. 1 — 7.), and of the 
useless vine (Ezek. xv. and xix. 10 — 14.). So too in that of the lion's 
whelps falling into the pit (Ezek. xix. 1 — 9.); that of the cedar of 
Lebanon lofty and flourishing, cut down and neglected (Ezek. xxxi.), 
exhibiting the height and fall of Assyria. The same prophet has 
depicted the love of God to his ancient church, and her fidelity to 
him, under the parable of a marriage covenant (Ezek. xvi. and xxiii. ). 
To the taste of a western the imagery is carried out too far in the 
latter parable, especially in the 20th verse of chapter xxiii. 

All the parables of Christ have this excellence. They are repre- 
sentations of natural and common occurrences. They were founded 
on things before the eyes of his hearers, or such as they were fami- 
liar with. The parable of the ten virgins, of the sower, of the house- 
holder who planted a vineyard and let it out to husbandmen, going 
away himself into a far country, are taken from well-known occur- 
rences. 

Another excellence of a parable is, that it be founded on an image 
not only apt and familiar, but elegant and beautiful in itself. 2 This 
is also exemplified in the parables of the prophets, and in a higher 
degree in those uttered by the Saviour. Exceptions may readily 
suggest themselves to the mind, or at least apparent exceptions. 
Some of Ezekiel's in particular appear less elegant. They may 
even be thought mean and degrading. Lowth, however, exculpates 
these on the ground of their dignity and grace being lost to us, 
though they were wanting in neither quality to people of the same 
1 Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, Lect. s. p. 84. 2 Ibid. p. 85. 






Parables. 413 

age and country. Thus he explains the boiling pot and scum flowing 
over into the fire, by the circumstance that it was taken from the 
priestly rites ; and nothing could be disgusting or inelegant connected 
with the holy ministration of the temple. 1 But whatever may be 
thought of this defence of some parables, there can be no doubt that 
the great majority of those in the Old Testament have the excellence 
required. And here again, our Lord's are preeminent. 

Further, all the parts and appendages of the imagery should be 
perspicuous and pertinent. When the similitude runs directly, 
naturally, and regularly through every circumstance, it is productive 
of the greatest beauty. This however is not necessary. Neither 
will the nature of the subject bear it in some cases. 2 

Another excellence which Lowth thinks the criterion of a parable 
is, that it be consistent throughout, and that the literal be never 
confounded with the figurative sense. 3 

In a parable there are three things requiring attention. 

First, the thing which illustrates, or the primary representation. 

Secondly, the thing illustrated, or the true sense. 

Thirdly, the tertium comparationis, or similitude existing between 
them. 

1. The illustrative example or immediate representation is of no 
other use than to convey the secondary representation or sense in- 
tended. 

2. The object to be illustrated, or the sense intended. This is 
called by Vossius dvra7r68oats, and by Quinctilian redditio contraria. 
It is improperly styled the mystical or internal sense. 

The right interpretation of a parable chiefly depends on our seizing 
the central truth around which all the parts are arranged, and towards 
which they all tend. The prominent idea must be first determined 
and fixed. Unless the central point be perceived, all will be confused. 
It is this leading doctrine or truth which illustrates the whole. There 
may be other individual truths which appear of equal importance ; 
but there is always one which comes out into the clearest light, con- 
spicuous above them all. This is the grand truth which forms the 
central point, and gives consistency to the rest. In endeavouring to 
ascertain the prominent idea which serves as the key to a parable's 
right explanation, we must examine, 

(1.) The context preceding or following — the introduction and 
application. 

(a.) The occasion on which it was introduced may illustrate the 
nature and bearing of a parable. Thus in Luke xviii. 2 — 8., the 
parable of the unjust judge is prefaced by, " And he spake a parable 
unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to 
faint." In like manner the parable of the Pharisee and Publican 
(Luke xviii. 10 — 14.) is preceded by these words, " And he spake 
this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were 
righteous, and despised others." So Luke xvi. 19 — 31. is explained 
as to its scope by the 14th verse preceding; and Matt. xx. 1., &c. 
by xix. 27., &c. 

1 Ibid. p. 85. 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid. pp. 85, 86. 



414 Biblical Interpretation. 

(b.) Certain phrases at the commencement also indicate the ge- 
neral design as, the kingdom of heaven is likened (Matt. xiii. 24. 31. 33.). 

(c.) A knowledge of the person or persons to whom the parable 
was addressed serves to explain its scope. 

The parable of Nathan was addressed to King David, the guilty 
person himself (2 Sam. xii. 1 — 7.). The parable of the beneficent 
Samaritan to the lawyer who was willing to justify himself (Luke 
x. 29—37.). 

(d.) In a few cases a full explanation is subjoined. Thus our 
Saviour himself explains the meaning of Matt. xiii. 3 — 8. in 18 — 23. 
But he did not usually condescend to do this, and left the applica- 
tion to those he meant to instruct. Nathan explains and applies his 
parable (2 Sam. xii. 7. &c). 

(<?.) Some phrase or declaration is subjoined which serves to point 
out the general scope of the parable. For example, we have a sen- 
tence prefaced by so is or so shall it be (Matt. xiii. 49., Luke xii. 21.). 
To the parable of the ten virgins is annexed the sentence, " Watch 
therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein the 
Son of man cometh " (Matt. xxv. 13.). To that of the unjust steward 
is appended, " Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of un- 
righteousness ; that when ye fail, they may receive you into ever- 
lasting habitations " (Luke xvi. 9.). Sometimes a parable has ex- 
planatory circumstances both at its commencement and close, as that 
of the unfeeling servant (Matt, xviii. 23.). Comp. verses 21. and 35. 
Other examples are Matt. xx. 1 — 15. and Luke xii. 16 — 20. 

(2.) Another parable of parallel import may serve to explain it. So 
Luke xv. 3 — 7. compared with Matt, xviii. 12 — 14. Little benefit 
however is derived from this source. 

It must be admitted that the explanation of some parables is at- 
tended with much difficulty. Even where the great central truth 
may be intimated by a declaration at the commencement or at the 
end, the interpretation itself is attended with uncertainty. This is 
much more so where no such declaration is prefixed or subjoined. 
In such a case we are apt to look at the connection in which it stands 
— the place it occupies in a narrative or between narratives. Yet 
when we reflect that the discourses in the Gospels do not stand in 
chronological succession, but that things spoken at different times 
and places are sometimes brought together by the writers as if they 
were closely connected, even the introductory context will throw 
little light on the meaning. Where the context fails to afford any 
indication of the intent of a parable, it is usual to propound the rule 
that the subject-matter should be studied. We fear, however, that little 
satisfaction can be derived from this. 

Let us examine some of this class. 

The parable of the prodigal son (Luke xv. 11 — 32.) has no decla- 
ratory or explanatory phrase prefixed or subjoined. It is without a 
preface ; nor is there any thing at the close to show its application. 
It has no 7rpo/uLv0iov or introduction ; it has no zttiixvQlov or applica- 
tion. But two shorter j^arables precede which have such adjuncts ; 
and there is no reason for supposing that the present one coming 



Parables. 415 

immediately after them was spoken at another time or intended to 
serve another purpose. Hence we may fairly conclude, that the joy 
in heaven at the return of penitent sinners to God, and the relation 
of the legally righteous to that joy, is depicted. Here are pour- 
trayed with masterly skill and simplicity as well as with true 
naturalness, the course of sin and of repentance, the joy existing in 
consequence of the latter, and the internal relation of the self- 
righteous to such a scene. The younger son is the sinner, who after 
a course of iniquity repents and turns; the elder one is he who 
thinks himself righteous because of his works. The publicans and 
pharisees respectively are not specially intended, though they come 
under the general description, which fairly applies to them as to all 
possessing certain characteristics. That the Jews and Gentiles 
respectively are not designated by the elder and younger sons, as 
some have supposed, may be inferred from verses 1, 2. 7. 10. 1 

Again, the parable of the fruitless fig-tree (Luke xiii. 6 — 9.) has 
no introductory or concluding explanation. No sentence is attached 
to it to point out its general design. But our Saviour had just before 
inculcated the necessity of repentance in order to avert destruction. 
He showed that the divine punishment should overtake all that 
would not repent. Hence it is intimated by the fruitless fig-tree, 
that the long-suffering of God would not continue towards the 
Jews who had already proved unfruitful ; that the Messianic visita- 
tion of mercy would be the last — that on it their destiny depended. 
Unless they repented and embraced the Messiah, they should be 
speedily destroyed. 2 

3. With respect to the tertium comparationis or relation between 
the primary and secondary representation, the same observations are 
appropriate which were advanced in the case of allegory. All the 
circumstances stated in the immediate representation do not find 
their corresponding features in the ultimate. Every word and 
phrase should not be insisted on as if it were meant to teach a dis- 
tinct thing. Some particulars are essential; others were added 
merely to give beauty or vivacity to the picture. They are the 
colouring which sets forth the fundamental lines. They serve for 
ornament and completeness. That this observation is just may be 
proved by the expositions which Christ himself furnishes of some 
parables. In the parable of the tares he does not explain the cir- 
cumstance "while men slept" (Matt. xiii. 25.); neither that in the 
27th verse, " so the servants of the householder came and said unto 
him." In the parable of the unjust steward (Luke xvi. 1. &c), he 
does not give any thing corresponding to a part of the third verse, " I 
cannot dig; to beg I am ashamed." There was nothing in the 
secondary representation which suited or was meant to suit these 
particulars. 

It is impossible to give any definite precept or rule which will 

enable an expositor to separate things that are significant from such 

as are merely ornamental. Tholuck says, "that in treating the 

parables of Christ the expositor must proceed on the assumption 

1 Sec Meyer's Kommentar on Luke, p. 376. second edition. 2 Ibid. 



416- Biblical Interpretation „ 

that there is import in every single point, and only desist from seek- 
ing it, either when it does not result without forcing, or when we 
can clearly show that this or that circumstance was merely added for 
the sake of giving intuitiveness to the narrative. We should not 
assume any thing to be non-essential except when by holding it as 
essential the unity of the whole is marred and disturbed." Perhaps 
this language embodies the best rule that can be given. Yet it will 
not go so far in actual exegesis as would at first appear. The in- 
terpreter must rely on his own judgment, his natural sagacity, and 
spiritual perception. Imagination must be regulated by sober reason. 
The propriety of the rule given by Tholuck, and repeated by Ols- 
hausen in various places of his commentary, is confirmed by the 
exposition which Christ himself gave of the parables of the sower and 
the tares, from which we see that few incidents of the outward nar- 
rative are without a proper significancy. Most details are not treated 
as mere ornament — meaningless except so far as they serve to render 
the picture complete — but as having a spiritual import. The buds 
which pick up the seed sown represent Satan who takes away the 
good word out of the heart ; and the thorns correspond to the cares 
and pleasures of life. (Matt. xiii. 19. 22.) 

Here then are practical directions for the explanation of parables, 
which are too important to be overlooked. We believe that they are 
embodied in the method recommended by Tholuck. They are also 
recognised by Olshausen affirming that "we must on the whole main- 
tain it as a canon, that no incident is to be lightly passed by unless 
by insisting upon it the figure as a whole should be manifestly ob- 
scured." 1 Whether this commentator has not made too many details 
significant, in actual exegesis, may be a question. It appears to us 
that he has erred occasionally in that direction, as might have been 
expected from the peculiar cast of his mind. 

Of the two extremes, that which treats all the minute parts of 
a parable as significant, and that which resolves very much into 
non-essential imagery, taking parables in the gross and setting aside 
the details, the latter is the more objectionable. For it leaves 
them bare trunks without foliage and branches, depriving them not 
merely of beauty and interest, but of their moral import also. It is 
true that this method has been greatly abused, till it appears mere 
capricious allegorising or ingenious trifling. It was so by Augustine 
and Origen in ancient times ; more recently by Cocceius and Gill. 
But is not the other method also an exaggeration and abuse of the 
true ? Consider what it is in the hands of Storr, jejune and barren; and 
see how the fulness of Scripture vanishes. We shall exemplify the 
one excess of parabolical interpretation by the following from Gill. 
Luke xv. 8—10. 

" By the ten pieces of silver are designed all the Jews or the whole 
body of that people. By the woman, the proprietor of them, is 
meant Christ. The nine pieces design the scribes and Pharisees ; 
and the one lost piece, expressed in the next clause, if she lose one 
piece, intends the elect among the Jews, who chiefly consisted of 
publicans and sinners ; and the regard had to these is signified by 
1 Biblischer Commcntar, voL i- p. C03. 






Parables. 417 

the following expressions : Doth not light a candle; by which is meant, 
the gospel itself, which like a candle is lighted up in the evening of 
the world, and may be removed, as it sometimes is, from place to 
place : now Christ is the lighter of this, and from him it has all its 
light ; who is the maker of it. And sweep the house, which phrase 
designs here the preaching of the gospel and the power that goes 
along with it, to the effectual vocation of the elect. The house in 
which Christ's lost piece of silver, or his chosen ones were, may 
design the nation of the Jews, who are often called the house of 
Israel : and about this time the Lord was about to break up house- 
keeping with them ; yet as there were some few among them that 
were to be looked up and called, therefore this house must be swept, 
as it was by the ministry of John the Baptist, by Christ himself, and 
by his apostles : and this suggests what must be the state and condi- 
tion of God's elect, being in this house, before it was swept and they 
found out ; they were out of sight, in great obscurity and darkness, 
with a deal of rubbish and dirt upon them, and pollution in them ; 
and as in sweeping of an house a great stir is made, a dust raised, 
and things are moved out of their place ; so by the preaching of the 
gospel an uproar is made in the sinner himself; and great stir and 
opposition is made by Satan to hinder the preaching of the gospel, 
as much as in him lies, and persons from coming to hear it. More- 
over when the gospel is preached in purity and with j>ower, and 
souls are converted, there is a great stir and uproar in the world, and 
among the men of it ; and there is also a stir and an uproar made by 
it among carnal professors of religion : and all this bustle is made for 
the sake of a single piece of money. And seek diligently till she find 
it. This diligent seeking and finding are to be understood of Christ's 
converting sinners, through the preaching of the gospel, both in his 
own person and by his ministers, his Spirit making their ministrations 
effectual: the diligence, care, and circumspection of Christ, to find 
out lost sinners, while the gospel is preaching, are here signified ; 'tis 

not the preacher that looks out for them Christ's eye is upon his 

lost piece : he perfectly knows the persons of the elect, as they are 
his Father's choice and gift to him ; he knew them in the counsel of 
peace, and covenant of grace, in the fall of Adam, and their natural 
estate ; he knows the places where they all are, and the time when 
they are to be converted ; and distinguishes them amidst all the 
filth that attends them, and the crowd among which they are ; and 
he continues seeking till he finds them ; which shows the perpetuity 
of the gospel ministry, the indefatigableness of Christ, and his sure 
and certain success." 

What anxiety is here shown about every phrase and word ! What 
adaptation of each and every part, even the minutest, to some spiri- 
tual correlative! What superstitious adherence to the letter ! Instead 
of looking chiefly to the applicatory part — to the great central truth, 
round which all others are ranged and to which they are sub- 
ordinate — all are adduced with equal copiousness of diction; or rather 
the minutest details instead of falling into the shade are most unduly 
insisted on and exalted. Every thing becomes significant, in con- 

VOL. II. E E 



418 Biblical Interpretation. 

sequence of which an interpretation is furnished in which nothing is 
significant or striking. 

Olshausen says truly, that "no certain boundary-line can be drawn, 
since the penetration required to apprehend the more remote lines of 
resemblance depends on the expositor's state of advancement in the 
spiritual life. Only, a due reverence for the words of our Lord will 
naturally lead to the most careful application possible of every 
particular incident, since the completeness of the similitude depends 
upon the fulness of the parallel resemblances which lie enclosed 
in it." x 

We shall now illustrate Luke xvi. 1 — 8. separating the incidental 
from the essential circumstances of the parable. It is addressed to 
Christ's disciples, as expressly stated in the first verse; and the leading 
design is, to use the goods of this life in such a manner as to con- 
tribute to spiritual and eternal happiness. Prudence in the employ- 
ment of earthly possessions is inculcated; which prudence is best 
exemplified in deeds of charity and mercy, so that when the disciples 
of Christ die, friends who have gone before may receive them with 
joy into the heavenly mansions. As worldly men are shrewd in 
acting for their own worldly interest, so spiritual men should also be 
shrewd in turning to their spiritual benefit that very mammon of 
unrighteousness which the worldly turn to their advantage The rich 
man as well as his steward are children of the present world. But this 
does not necessarily prevent us from interpreting the former to 
represent in the secondary representation the Almighty possessor of 
all things ; and the latter, spiritual stewards. The whole parable is 
taken from the world and the characters in it. As the lord of the 
steward praised him, not for his dishonesty but his shrewdness in 
looking after his own interests ; so the great Ruler of all will com- 
mend his true stewards for attending to their spiritual interests with 
such prudence as to make even worldly possessions conducive to 
them. The idea corresponding to the announcement of the lord to 
his steward, that he could not retain his office longer, is that of the 
certainty of death which God announces within every one by the 
voice of conscience. The rest of the parable is mere scenery or 
colouring having no special significancy. The 5th, 6th, and 7th 
verses are of this nature. In applying this as well as other parables we 
must not suppose that certain actions are proposed for imitation, such 
as dishonesty or robbery. These actions are given only as the 
expressions of dispositions — worldly qualities — which qualities are 
to be imitated in themselves, by the spiritual man. Prudence, 
shrewdness, forethought, even though the worldly exhibit them in the 
performance of unjust or immoral actions, are to be followed by be- 
lievers in the doing of good actions. Believers should have a regard 
to the highest interests those qualities are capable of promoting, 
similar to that which unbelievers show towards their selfish ends. 2 

It now remains for us to allude to various observations which have 
been frequently classed under the head of canons or rules for inter- 
preting the parables. 

1 Biblisclier Commentar, vol. i. p. 789. t See Alford's Greek Testament in loc. 



Parables. 419 

1. " The parables may not be made first sources and seats of 
doctrine. Doctrines otherwise and already established may be illus- 
trated or indeed further confirmed by them ; but it is not allowable 
to constitute doctrine first by their aid." 1 The propriety of this 
observation is apparent. The literal is plainer than the figurative. 
All doctrines of moment are unfolded in clear, unfigurative expres- 
sions. Hence parabolical theology is not argumentative. It forms 
no part of the analogy of faith. On the contrary, the analogy of 
faith must regulate its contents so far that they should harmonise 
with or illustrate it. 

2. It is contended by Unger in his treatise on the parables 2 , that 
the interpretation of each parable is one. This is correct, if the 
writer mean that the sense intended is one, viz. that which is con- 
veyed by the primary representation, or in other words the par- 
tially concealed sense. Some general truth, principle, or fact is 
inculcated. But if the writer in question mean, that Christ while 
openly inculcating important truths by this method of instruction 
never tacitly condemned the opinions or conduct of the Jews, he does 
not seem to be correct. For, Avhen a parable bears a general aspect or 
exhibits a general truth, it is capable of various applications. It is 
suitable to men in a variety of circumstances. Hence the real sense 
of a parable while it is comprehensive may fairly admit of being 
applied to scribes and Pharisees, Jews and Gentiles. These indeed 
may not be specially intended by the speaker ; but if he has enun- 
ciated a general principle, these applications of it to particular cases 
are legitimate. Hence it is probable that our Saviour had a tacit 
reference to opinions and practices current among the Jews of his 
time, though it be hidden under the general sense. 

3. It has been said that persons should not be compared with persons, 
but things with things, as when we read in Matt. xiii. 24., " The 
kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in 
his field ; " and in verse 45th, " The kingdom of heaven is likened 
unto a merchantman seeking goodly pearls." The similitude is not 
Avith the men, but with the seed and the pearl. This may be true in 
some cases ; but in the explanation of a parable it is necessary to 
compare persons with persons as well as things with things. The 
whole parable may refer to persons more than to things, or quite as 
much so. Thus in the parable of the sower, we must compare the 
sower to the teacher. In that of the tares and the wheat, the enemy 
that sowed the latter is the devil, represented by the enemy of him 
who sowed the wheat. It is even expressly affirmed that " the good 
seed are the children of the kingdom." (Matt. xiii. 38.) Here a 
thing is compared with a person. 

4. Another rule respecting the interpretation of parables is, 

That attention should be given to historical circumstances. — But we 

believe that history contributes nothing to the explanation of parables 

further than the Bible itself furnishes the history. If the context or 

parallels or other parts of Scripture do not exhibit the means of in- 

1 Trench on the Parables, pp. 39, 40. 

2 De Parabolarrim Jesn Natura, &c. p. 87. 



420 Biblical Interpretation. 

terpretation, the guidance of church history will be of no avail. His- 
tory may confirm an interpretation given, but it can scarcely be said 
to aid in the development of it. Let us look at the examples in which 
it is said to afford benefit. Matt. xiii. 31, 32. contains two parables. 
In the one the kingdom of heaven is compared to a grain of mustard- 
seed ; in the other to leaven hid in measures of meal. What then does 
ecclesiastical history contribute to the interpretation of these, which 
the New Testament itself fails to furnish? The Christian church 
was small in its beginnings, and is ever increasing till it reach as far 
as it was intended. If this be what the parable inculcates, surely it is 
unnecessary to have recourse to ecclesiastical history. Another ex- 
ample classed under the same head is in Luke xix. 11 — 27., where a 
nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom 
and to return. It may be true, that our Lord here alludes to a case 
which had occurred not long before in Judea, to that of Archelaus, 
as Meyer thinks ; or to that of Herod the Great, his father. We do 
not think it probable that he did allude to either of these or both, 
though they may have readily suggested themselves to the minds of 
the hearers at the time. But on the assumption that there was such 
special reference, we ask, what part of the parable is better explained 
by it ? How does it contribute to the right interpretation ? We 
cannot see the aid given. 

Again, in the parable of the compassionate Samaritan, a know- 
ledge of the facts connected with the way from Jerusalem to Jericho, 
viz. that it lay through a wild solitary part of the country infested 
with robbers, shows that the scene is laid with a due regard to his- 
torical propriety — that the road is one where such a casualty was 
likely to befall a traveller. But the circumstance is only incidental. 
It contributes nothing to the elucidation of the meaning intended. 
A knowledge of the spot and of its being then infested with banditti, 
merely shows historical accuracy in the selection of the place. 

5. Of a little more utility perhaps is another precept, viz. to attend 
to the nature and properties of the things whence the comparisons are 
taken, since the explanation may be assisted by that means. '" It 
helps very much," says Keach 1 , " in the understanding of parables, 
if men know the natural properties of such things, arts, or mysteries, 
as are proposed in the similitudes." 

In Matt. xiii. 31. the progress of the church is compared to a 
grain of mustard-seed which is very small when cast into the earth, 
but which afterwards grows up and becomes a large tree with 
branches in which the fowls of the air make their nests. In North- 
West India is a large shrub or tree of moderate size called there 
Kharjal, in botany the Salvadora Persica. This is the mustard-tree 
here referred to, a specimen of which Irby and Mangles met with, 
while advancing towards Kerek from the southern extremity of the 
Dead Sea. They say that its seeds had a pleasant though strongly 
aromatic taste, resembling mustard. The seed has a name khardal, 
equivalent in Greek to a-tvairi, and used by the Talmudists. It is 

I ' On the Metaphors, p. 240. 



Parables. 421 

small and produces a large tree with branches. We cannot say- 
however, that this knowledge facilitates the understanding of the 
parable. 

Perhaps a knowledge of the properties of leaven throws some 
light on Matt. xiii. 32. It is incipient corruption spreading through 
a mass of dough and making the whole sour. But the kingdom of 
heaven is not compared to this in itself. As leaven spreads through 
a mass of dough and assimilates the whole to itself, so the kingdom 
of heaven, i. e. the external church, will grow and increase, spreading 
throughout the nations until it shall have accomplished all the pur- 
poses of God. 

6. Another rule given is this : " Whereas it is frequently said that 
the kingdom of heaven is like this or that thing, we are not to under- 
stand that it is so in all its parts, or in every respect, but only in 
such things as are declared in the similitude. So Christ is compared 
to a thief only in this respect, because he cometh in a time when un- 
looked for or when unexpected, Luke xii. 39." 

This canon, as it is termed by Keach, in whose words we have 
given it, comes under the head of Locke's " trifling propositions." 
A thing is said to be like only in such things as are declared in the 
similitude. Who would carry the resemblance further ? Christ is 
not, properly speaking, compared to a thief. Certainly not in Luke 
xii. 39., nor even in Rev. iii. 3. It is his coming that is compared to 
the coming of a thief, as it will be sudden, unlooked for. Hence we 
read elsewhere in Scripture, " the dag of the Lord cometh as a thief 
in the night." 

Although it belong not to Hermeneutics to show the utility of 
parables, but rather the method of ascertaining their meaning, yet it 
may not be amiss here to append a few particulars bearing on the 
point. Their utility will show why they were so frequently adopted 
by our Lord. If the nature of a parable be considered, it will be 
perceived that no mode of teaching, or of illustrating a subject, is so 
well adapted to illiterate men unaccustomed to abstract truths ; for, 

1. It was a common method of instruction in the country, and at 
the time our Saviour appeared. 

2. Being of the nature of history or narrative, it excites the atten- 
tion, interests the hearer or reader, and vividly impresses the mind. 

3. It is accommodated to the apprehension of men whose know- 
ledge comes chiefly through the senses, because abstract truth or doc- 
trine is presented in the garb of history. Minds so carnal as those 
of Christ's immediate disciples, hearts averse to the truth like those 
of the Scribes and Pharisees, could both receive more instruction by 
this vehicle than any other. It was adapted to the diversified cha- 
racter of his assembled hearers — to the various degrees of moral ele- 
vation they presented. All occupied a low spiritual stand-point, and 
were incapable of apprehending a discourse destitute of imagery. 

4. It is easily retained in the memory, and therefore if the sense 
be not at once apprehended, reflection on the circumstances so gra- 
phically depicted may afterwards evolve it. 

K E 3 



422 Biblical Interpretation. 

5. The brevity of this method makes it most effectual when 
rightly used ; for in a few lines truth of the greatest importance may 
be set forth far more successfully than in an entire philosophical 
treatise. 

6. Our Lord himself states one reason why he spoke to the Jews 
in parables, that hearing they might hear and not understand. They 
were so perverse and wicked as to unfit them for the reception of 
truth. They were unwilling to learn the heavenly doctrines he 
came to promulgate. Hence he spake to them in this manner as a 
punishment for their wilful obstinacy against him. They had closed 
their eyes and hardened their hearts ; therefore he employs a method 
of instruction which veiled the truth from their view, not in order 
that they might become more blind, but because he knew that in their 
existing perverseness they ivould not hear and understand in whatever 
way he spake to them. As a righteous retribution, they were ad- 
dressed in a method which to them would be more dark. The veil- 
ing of the truth was thus an act of judgment for the perverse state 
of their hearts towards Him who " is the way, the truth, and the life." 
The design and the effect coincided in the one result of hardening 
the Jews still more in unbelief. 

The parables of the Old Testament are but few. They are 
Nathan's spoken to David (2 Sam. xii. 1.) ; that of the two brothers 
contending (2 Sam. xiv. 6.) ; of the prisoner who escaped (1 Kings 
xx. 39.); the vineyard which yielded wild grapes (Isa. v. 1.). The 
parables of our Lord, which are all contained in the Gospels, are 
numerous, and admit of different classifications, according to the 
view which authors take of their general scope and design. Thus 
Gray adopts a threefold division : 1. Such as represent the nature 
and progress of the gospel-dispensation, together with the opposition 
which it had to receive from the malice of Satan, and from the folly 
and perversity of men. 2. Those which set forth the rejection of the 
Jews and the calling of the Gentiles. 3. Those delivering moral 
instruction. The last is again subdivided into two classes. 

This division is erroneous in principle, inasmuch as it proceeds on 
an incorrect view of various parables. Still more inadequate and 
objectionable is Greswell's classification into the prophetic and the 
moral. Many are placed in the first class which are not prophetic ; 
and the division is too general to be of any practical benefit. 

Another classification is that of Lisco, which is certainly prefer- 
able to either of the preceding, but too artificial. It cannot be recom- 
mended as adequate or just. Dividing them into three classes, he puts 
into the first those representing the heavenly kingdom as containing 
truth and powers divine in their origin and blessed in their effects. 
As an example we may take the parable of the sower in Matt. xiii. 
3 — 9. Secondly, those representing the heavenly kingdom founded 
on these truths, such as the barren fig-tree (Luke xiii. 6 — 9.) ; and 
the fish-net (Matt. xiii. 47 — 50.). Thirdly, such as represent the 
heavenly kingdom in the faith, love, and hope of its members ; for, 
example, that of the labourers (Matt. xx. I.). 1 It is easy to see the 

1 Lisco on the Parables, translated in the Biblical Cabinet, vol. xxix. p. 33 et seqq. 






Scripture Proverbs. 423 

defectiveness of this division as soon as it is attempted to put all the 
parables under one or other of the three heads. Indeed it is impos- 
sible to do so without violence. The cause of failure in all the divi- 
sions mentioned has been the striving to make a very general clas- 
sification, one having very few heads, a thing manifestly impossible 
in the case of so many and informal narratives. Whatever division be 
adopted, it must be longer and more minute to be worth making. 
But none is of use in actual explanation. 



CHAP. VII. 

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE PROVERBS. 

Proverbs are nearly allied to parables ; indeed, the same word both 
in Hebrew and Greek means parable and proverb, hwn in Hebrew, 
and irapoLfjuia in Greek, both signify proverbs. The idea of com- 
parison or similitude lies at the basis of each. Yet there is a clear 
distinction between them in the present day. A proverb may be 
either in prose or poetry. It refers to the matter. But among the 
Hebrews, proverb, ?^9, might refer to the manner even more than 
the matter. The comparison or similitude might be in the poetic 
parallelism or outward adjustment of measure. It is for this reason 
that the title Proverbs is given to a book in the Old Testament. 

In the infancy of nations, the usual mode of instruction was by 
proverbs, i. e. by detached aphorisms or sententious sayings. Those 
who were qualified to communicate knowledge to others were de- 
sirous to condense it into the most compendious form, into general 
maxims, few in number but authoritative in form — abrupt, com- 
manding. That it might not however repel, but persuade men, it 
began to be adorned with comparisons and rendered more attractive. 

The Proverbs of the Old Testament are placed by Lowth among 
the didactic poetry of the Hebrews, of which many specimens are 
extant, especially the book called the Proverbs of Solomon. At 
present we have to do only with such as are expressed in tropical 
language. The majority of our English proverbs are in prose ; those 
of the orientals in poetry. 1 

The prime excellence of a proverb is brevity. This indeed is a 
necessary condition. If it be not expressed in a few words, ten or 
twelve at most, it ceases to be a proverb. Nothing superfluous 
should be admitted into it. Only the most necessary, strong, and 
direct words are to be received. This is expressed by the writer of 
the book of Proverbs himself : — 

The words of the -wise are like goads, 
And like nails that are firmly fixed, 

1 See Stuart on the Proverbs, pp. 12, 13. 
e e 4 



424 Biblical Interpretation. 

That is, they should prick sharply and hold firmly. But this great 
brevity is also attended with a degree of obscurity — an obscurity 
which serves to whet the understanding and stimulate the mind to 
discover the meaning. 

Another excellence belonging to a proverb in the sacred writings 
is neatness or elegance. This quality respects the sentiment, imagery > 
and diction. If it have not what amounts to elegance, it must at 
least possess a degree of compactness or roundness which entitles it 
to be called neat. Such is the maxim quoted by David, — 

Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked (1 Sam. xxiv. 13.); 
and that found in Proverbs x. 12., — 

Hatred stirreth up strifes, 
But love covereth all sins. 

Entire proverbial sentences which are expressly stated to have passed 
into proverbs, may be found in Gen. x. 9., xxii. 14., &c. 

Examples of proverbial phrases which have been taken from com- 
mon life and incorporated into sentences, but are not expressly called 
proverbs, occur in Deut. xxv. 4., 1 Kings xx. 11. &c., Psalm cxi. 10., 
Prov. i. 7. 

Many occur in the book of Proverbs, as might be expected : Prov. 
i. 17., iii. 12. &c. So also in Ecclesiastes, i. 15. 18., iv. 12.; and in 
the prophets, Jer. xiii. 23., xxiii. 28. &c ; Micah vii. 5. 6. ; Hab. 
ii. 6. ; Mai. ii. 10. &c. 

The proverbs occurring in the New Testament are generally easy 
of explanation. Many of them were in use among the Jews, and 
were therefore adopted from common life. In the hands of Christ 
and the apostles, they acquire a new application and higher signifi- 
cancy. AVith admirable sagacity and propriety, they are adapted to 
the spiritual and higher teaching of the new dispensation. They 
acquire an originality and elegance which the letter-loving Pharisees 
could never have given them. Thus the proverb, " It is easier for a 
camel to pass through the eye of a needle," which Christ utters, as 
recorded in Matt. xix. 24. ; Mark x. 25. ; Luke xviii. 25., is found 
in the Talmud, and had been current before the time of our Lord in 
a slightly different form : the elephant is the animal mentioned in- 
stead of the camel. It describes an impossibility. In like manner, 
to cast the beam out of one's eye, and to pull the mote out of another's 
eye (Matt. vii. 3. 4.), occur in the Talmud in the same sense. To 
strain out a gnat and swallow a camel (Matt, xxiii. 24.) is also a 
Jewish proverb. The best work on the proverbs of the New Testa- 
ment is still that of Vorstius, De Adagiis N. T. Diatriba, from which 
many examples are taken and inserted by Dathe in his edition of 
Glassius. The two books of Drusius, chiefly on the proverbs of the 
Old Testament, are in the ninth vol. of the Critici Sacri. The work 
of Schottus on the proverbs of the New Testament is inferior to 
that of Vorstius ; and that of Zehner is lumbering, though laborious. 
Illustrations of the New Testament proverbs are given by Lightfoot 
and Schoettgen in their Hora Hebraicce et Talmudicce, and also by 
Buxtorf in his Rabbinic and Talmudic Lexicon. 



Poetical Parts of Scripture. 425 



CHAP. VIII. 

THE INTERPRETATION OF THE POETICAL PARTS OP SCRIPTURE. 

In this chapter we shall endeavour to be as brief as possible, because 
there are no peculiar canons applicable to the interpretation of 
poetry. Prose and poetry must be explained by the same method. 
It will be necessary however to glance at the nature and charac- 
teristics of Hebrew poetry. 

Most of the characteristics of Hebrew poetry are the same as 
belong to all poetry. These therefore need not be stated. The dis- 
tinguishing feature is found in the peculiar form in which it expresses 
ideas. This is commonly called parallelism. Bather should it be 
termed, with Ewald, thought -rhythm l , since the sentiment is so dis- 
tributed that the full import does not come out in less than a distich. 
The peculiarity is in the substance more than in the mere form, — or 
rather the substance gives rise to the form as a suitable vehicle in 
which it embodies itself. We shall retain the common appellation 
parallelism. 

The rhythmical form of Hebrew poetry has given rise to many 
discussions and treatises. De Wette 2 arranges the different opinions 
under the following heads : — - 

1. It has been maintained by many, that Hebrew poetry possesses 
metrical feet and versification, which they attempt to define and 
restore ; but in describing the character of the metre, they are not 
unanimous. 

(a.) Some asserted a versification analogous to the Greek and Latin 
metres. Here Philo, Josephus, Eusebius, Jerome, Isidore of Spain, 
are referred to. Considerable weight has been supposed to belong 
to the affirmations of Josephus, who terms the versification of Moses' 
song of triumph at the Red Sea hexameter, as also the farewell song 
of Moses ; and represents the Psalms of David as consisting of tri- 
meter and hexameter verses. Jerome's opinion too has led others 
after him. He represents the Psalms as consisting of iambic, alcaic, 
and sapphic verse, like the odes of Horace and Pindar, while the 
verse of Job is hexameter and pentameter. 

The various attempts to define the laws of Hebrew metre have 
proved utter failures. Gomar, Meibomius, Hare, Sir W. Jones, 
Greve, Saalschiitz, have signally failed. 

(b.) Others maintained that the Hebrew poetry possesses a free 
versification, as Sir. I. D. Michaelis. 

(c.) Another class thought they found rhyme or something like it, 
in Hebrew poetry. Among others, Augustine and Le Clerc be- 
lieved so. All that can be conceded to them is, that instances of 
rhyme do occur in the Old Testament ; but that does not prove their 
position. 

1 Die poetischen Biicher des Alten Bundes, Erster Theil, p. 68. 

2 Introduction to the Psalms, translated in the American Biblical Repository for 1833, 
p. 479. et seqq. 



426 Biblical Interpretation. 

(d.) Others, though denying the existence of a proper metre, held 
at the same time that the poetry was adapted to certain melodies, 
which would still imply the necessity of some sort of syllabic mea- 
sure. Pfeiffer, Van Til and others thought so. It is useless to 
show the erroneousness of this view, as it is apparent. 

2. Others allowed that the Hebrew poetry possesses a versification 
which is lost to us and cannot therefore be defined. This is the 
view of Carpzov, Lowth, Bauer, Jahn, Meyer, and others. It has 
been refuted by De Wette * and Wolf. 2 

3. Others again maintained that Hebrew poetry is destitute of 
metre and feet. This is the view of various learned Jews, and of 
Joseph Scaliger, G. J. Vossius, R. Simon, Wasmuth, Herder, Jebb, 
De Wette, Ewald, and many others. According to these writers 
Hebrew poetry consists in parallelism. 

What then is meant by parallelism ? What is the nature of that 
rhythmical form assumed by Hebrew poetry ? It is a symmetrical 
proportion between the larger sections or members of a period, the 
smaller being neglected. Lowth defines it, a certain equality, resem- 
blance, or relationship between the members of each period. 

Parallelism is of diiFerent kinds. It will differ, for example, accord- 
ing to the different laws of the association of ideas. Thus the laws 
of resemblance and contrast produce the synonymous and antithetic 
parallelisms, as they are called by Lowth. A third kind, the synthetic, 
is based on a resemblance in the form of construction and progression 
of the thoughts. Thus we have the synonymous, antithetic, and 
synthetic. 

1. The synonymous. In these parallel lines there is a correspon- 
dence of one to another, in terms nearly equivalent and expressing 
substantially the same sense. For example, 

Seek ye Jehovah while he may he found, 
Call ye upon him while he is near. 

(Isa. lv. 6.) 

This species of parallelism is said to be the most frequent of all, 
prevailing chiefly in the shorter poems, in many of the Psalms, and 
often in Isaiah. Bishop Jebb 3 , after criticising Lowth's definition of 
it, proposes another appellation as more suitable, viz., cognate, to 
which we see no good objection. The name, however, is of little 
moment, provided it be borne in mind that synonymous does not 
imply exact sameness in idea and form. There is a general re- 
semblance between the parallel lines. But we object to another 
proposed emendation of name, viz., gradational 4 , as conveying an 
idea which is not generally found, an ascent from species to genus, or 
a descent from genus to species. There is not usually an ascending 
in the second clause above the first, as Jebb has asserted and en-r 
deavoured to show by examples. His explanations of the passages 
adduced are ingenious, but artificial and far-fetched. 

2. Parallel lines antithetic are those in which two lines correspond 

1 Introduction to the Psalms, &c, p. 486. et seqq. 

2 The Messiah as predicted in the Pentateuch and Psalms, p. 6. et seqq. 
8 Sacred Literature, p. 34. et seqq. 

4 Proposed by a writer in the British Critic for 1820, pp. 585, 586. 






Poetical Parts of Scripture. 427 

with one another by an opposition of sentiments and terms, when 
the second is contrasted with the first, sometimes in expressions, 
sometimes in sense only, as 

Faithful are the wounds of a friend, 
But deceitful are the kisses of an enemy. 

(Prov. xxvii. 6.) 

3. Parallel lines synthetic or constructive are when the parallelism 
consists only in the similar form of construction ; when there is a 
correspondence and equality between different propositions in respect 
of the shape and turn of the whole sentence and of the constituent 
parts ; such as noun answering to noun, verb to verb, interrogative 
to interrogative. Thus, 

The law of Jehovah is perfect, converting the soul; 

The testimony of Jehovah is sure, making wise the simple; 

The precepts of Jehovah are right, rejoicing the heart; 

The commandment of Jehovah is clear, enlightening the eyes; 

The fear of Jehovah is pure, enduring for ever; 

The judgments of Jehovah are truth, they are altogether righteous; 

More desirable than gold, and than much fine gold; 

And sweeter than honey, and the dropping of honey-combs. 

(Psal. xix. 7 — 10.) 

Respecting each of the three species Jebb observes, that it admits 
many subordinate varieties ; and that in combinations of verses, the 
several kinds are perpetually intermingled ; circumstances which at 
once enliven and beautify the composition, and frequently give 
peculiar distinctness and precision to the train of thought. 1 

4. Another variety of parallelism pointed out by Jebb 2 , and 
elevated by two or three writers after him into a distinct class, the 
fourth, is called introverted. Here the stanzas are so constructed, 
that whatever be the number of lines, the first line shall be parallel 
with the last, the second with the penultimate, and so throughout in 
an order that looks inward, as 

My son, if thine heart be wise; 
My heart also shall rejoice ; 
Yea, my reins shall rejoice; 
When thy lips speak right things. 

(Prov. xxiii. 15, 16.) 

With regard to this fourth species, we view it simply as the 
offspring of ingenuity. We do not believe that it was ever intended 
by any of the sacred writers that his lines should be read and con- 
structed in that manner. All the examples given by Jebb are 
simply examples of line following upon line. And we may say of 
the other three, with the numerous subdivisions under them which 
Lowth and Jebb have given, that they are of no importance. It is 
doubtful whether the poetical parts of Scripture can be classified in 
any distinct or useful manner in relation to the nature of the rhythm 
observable in them. The rhythmical proportion in the parts of 
periods, and in periods themselves compared with one another, is so 
multiform and varied that we can perceive no benefit from attempting 
to classify it. It almost eludes classification. 

1 Sacred Literature, p. 27. 2 Ibid. p. 53. 



428 Biblical Interpretation. 

De "Wette has given a different classification from that of Lowth, 
with many minor divisions under each, after Lowth's example. 

I. The original, perfect kind of parallelism of members, coinciding 
with metre and rhyme without being the same with them. Here 
there is a perfect resemblance or antithesis of thoughts, so that the 
words are equal at least in their number, and sometimes there is also 
a certain resemblance of sound. 

Adah and Zillah, hear my voice ! 
"Wives of Lamech, receive my speech ! 
If I slew a man to my wounding, 
And a young man — to my hurt : 
If Cain was avenged seven times, 
Then Lamech — seventy times seven. 

(Gen. iv. 23.) 

Here all is nearly equal except the places marked with a dash, 
where the words must be supplied from the preceding member. The 
rhyme is necessarily omitted in the translation. 

II. The external proportion of words may be unequal, as 

Ye kings of the earth, sing God : 
Harp to the Lord ! 

(Psal. lxviii. 33.) 

Here no less than five species of the unequal parallelism are enu- 
merated and illustrated by De Wette. 

III. Ottt of the parallelism which is rendered unequal by one of 
the members arises, in the case of a still greater fulness of thought, 
another, in which the equality is restored by both members becoming 
complex. Here richness of matter is combined with perfect propor- 
tion of form. Under this head also are various subdivisions. 

My life is spent in grief, 

And my years in sighing ; 

•My strength faileth by means of my punishment, 

And my bones are consumed. 

(Psal. xxxi. 11.) 

IV. The rhythmical parallelism is that which has a simply external 
rhythmical form, such as ryhme is, without any correspondence in the 
ideas. It consists simply in the form of the period. Here again are 
various subdivisions. 

Moreover by them was thy servant warned; 
In keeping of them there is great reward. 

(Psal. xix. 12.) 1 

Those who attach importance to the subject of parallelism will 
probably see that De Wette has carried out the system of Lowth 
and others in an improved form. 

We cannot but think, however, that all such attempts amount 
to little else than ingenious efforts to introduce classification and 
order, or at least something like order, into a subject whose very 
nature rejects them. We believe that the poetry of the Hebrews has 

1 Introduction to the Psalms, &c. p. 496. 






Poetical Parts of Scripture. 429 

a certain rhythmical form shaped for the most part by the nature of 
the thoughts ; that it is distinguished by this peculiarity, if by any 
one characteristic, from the poetry of other peoples ; but its varieties 
were never meant to be reduced to rule, and are incapable of it. 
The sacred poets were commonly trammelled by no artificial distinc- 
tions and measurements. Their ideas took a certain shape more 
frequently and observably than the poetry of other nations. There 
is a kind of rhythm in all poetry ; in that of the Hebrews it is some- 
what marked and prominent. But it cannot be brought into the 
operation of rules. It was free, untrammelled, unconscious of such 
regular proportions as have been assigned to it. Many prose writings 
furnish as good specimens of several subdivisions under the leading 
classes of parallel lines as are given by Lowth, Jebb, and De Wette. 

In the year 1831, Koester attempted to show that the parallelism 
of lines in a period may be carried further; and that there is a paral- 
lelism of verses with one another. In other words, he tried to show 
that Hebrew poetry is of a strophical character. As verses consist of 
parallel members, strophes consist of parallel verses, which latter he en- 
deavoured to point out. 1 In the same year, the author just mentioned 
published the books of Job and Ecclesiastes in a German translation 
strophically arranged. Here we cannot but admire the ingenuity 
displayed, though believing that it has been all but wasted. The 
strophical character of all Hebrew poetry for which he contends, and 
Avhich he believes himself to have discovered, is imaginary. As well 
might one try to exemplify the strophical characteristic of all English 
poetry. The Hebrew poets never dreamed of such symmetry as 
would thus be introduced into their compositions. It exists only in 
the imagination of the critic ; so far at least as it can be called a 
feature of Hebrew poetry. 

In 1839 Ewald published his Introduction to Hebrew Poetry, in 
which, among other topics connected with Hebrew poetry, its form 
is also investigated. Here he enters into the nature of verse-rhythm 
and the modifications of verse-structure connected with it. There 
can be no doubt that there are various profound remarks on the na- 
ture of rhythm in the little treatise ; yet it is pervaded by the ob- 
scurity and fancifulness which run through all Ewald's writings. 
A perusal of it is sufficient to show that it is impossible to ascertain 
the different kinds of rhythm which had arisen in Hebrew poetry. 
The critic perceives a sort of strophical structure occasionally, when 
he exemplifies a rhythm of several verses. Where he affirms at the 
conclusion that he has given a complete exhibition of the Hebrew 
versification with all its numerous variations and licenses, it is sur- 
prising that he did not perceive " the licenses " to be the rule. The 
verse-rhythm is characterised by freedom. Rules cannot be pro- 
perly applied to it. "Whatever kinds one may think he sees in it are 
owing to the free play of the writers' mind inspired from above. 
Ewald has mistaken the whole matter in asserting that after the 
different kinds of rhythm had arisen, " art could at length survey 

1 See the Studien und Kritiken for 1831, Heft. i. p. 40. et seqq. 



430 Biblical Interpretation. 

them all and make a free selection in applying each respectively 
according to any special object. That this was actually done, the 
little book of the Lamentations of Jeremiah and the other alpha- 
betical songs furnish a remarkable evidence; for in them we find 
the three rigidly discriminated main species of rhythm — as they 
were developed in the sixth century — for the first time designedly 
and sedulously carried out with minute accuracy throughout all the 
verses." 1 

The rhythm of the Hebrews was simple and unfettered. The 
rhythmical art of the Hebrews is seen only in the artificial arrange- 
ment of the Psalms ; and that is but little. Thus Psalms xxv. xxxiv. 
xxxvii. cxi. cxii. cxix. cxi v., Proverbs xxxi. 10., and the Lamenta- 
tions of Jeremiah, except the last chapter, are alphabetically arranged 
by the initial letters of the verses. But very few of these poems are 
perfectly alphabetical. In tAvo only, i. e. Psalms cxi. cxii., are the 
lines or half- verses alphabetically arranged. The usual rule is that 
each verse should begin with a new letter. This is often violated. 
In Psalm xxxvii. every other verse so begins, but with interruption 
and change ; in Psal. cxix. and Lam. iii. there are series of verses 
having the same initial letters. To attempt to amend the irregularities 
and deficiencies, as if they originated with transcribers, is wholly 
unwarrantable. Whatever purpose the alphabetical arrangement was 
intended to serve, whether to assist the memory, as LoWth conjec- 
tured, or whether it was merely a contrivance of the rhythmical art, 
as De Wette thinks, the few specimens of it extant, and those too 
irregular in various respects, show that we cannot carry into Hebrew 
poetry generally a similar art to that which gave rise to these artifi- 
cial structures. It would be illogical to infer from them that the verse- 
rhythm was regularly subjected to certain laws, and that therefore 
the various species of it may be defined. The alphabetical arrange- 
ment, so far from evincing rhythmical art to be a rule in Hebrew 
poetry, proves it to be an exception. Such contrivance is a sign of 
inferior taste, as if the outward form could compensate for the life 
and spirit. If the rhythmical art were more observable than it is, 
the poetry would be so far inferior in all the qualities — force, fire, 
beauty, and sublimity — by which it is commonly characterised. 

The existence of parallelism in the New Testament as well as 
the Old, has been largely developed by Bishop Jebb. Some critics 
had observed the poetical style and structure in small portions and 
single verses before his time : it was reserved for him to point out 
the great extent to which it pervades the New Testament. There 
can be no question that in quotations from the poetical parts of the 
Old Testament the same parallelism will appear. The hymns in 
Luke's Gospel (chap, i.) are essentially Hebraic, and partake in 
consequence of the same rhythmical form as the ancient poetry. 
In like manner the Apocalypse, which is a Hebrew poem in con- 
ception, imagery, and form, has much of the rhythm of Old 
Testament poetry. But when Jebb proceeds to show that quotations 

1 Page 86. 



Poetical Parts of Scripture. 431 

of a complex kind, in which fragments are combined from dif- 
ferent parts of the poetical Scriptures and wrought up into one 
whole, are reducible to the laws supposed to regulate rhythm in the 
Old Testament; or that "the sententious" parallelism pervades all 
the component members (original or derived) of a passage consisting 
of quotations mingled with original matter, in which portions of the 
Hebrew Scriptures are so connected and blended with original 
Avriting that the compound forms a homogeneous whole ; that is, 
when passages like Rom. xi. 33 — 35. and Rom. x. 13 — 18. are brought 
into the same category with regular poetical verses in the Old 
Testament, and distributed like them into parallel lines ; we demur 
to the proceeding as entirely fanciful, artificial, unnatural. It 
was never intended that quotations of either kind should be treated 
as having regular parallelisms. Yet the ingenious writer does not 
stop there. He believes that the New Testament generally is per- 
vaded by original parallelisms, and these he accordingly proceeds 
to distribute into various classes, such as parallel couplets, parallel 
triplets, quatrains, stanzas of five and six lines, stanzas of more 
than six parallel lines, exemplifying each by copious extracts from 
the New Testament Gospels and Epistles. The whole is mere 
fancy. The Gospels and Epistles are prose ; and as prose alone 
they should be treated. If it were necessary, we could select many 
prose writers and arrange extracts from them in the same manner 
as Jebb does with the prose of the New Testament. There is no 
foundation for parallelisms in the Gospels and Epistles ; their very 
nature and structure repudiate it. They partake no more of the 
rhythmical form of Hebrew verses than do the writings of Dr. John- 
son. It is matter of regret therefore that Jebb should have thrown 
away so much ingenuity and taste in deciphering various kinds of 
parallel lines in the New Testament. He was capable of better 
things. The attempt made by him to carry into the New Testa- 
ment the principles illustrated by Lowth in the Old Testament 
poetry was soon followed up by another writer, Boys, who, in his 
Tactica Sacra, has arranged four of the Epistles in parallel lines. 
In that work, and afterwards in his l: Key to the Book of Psalms," 
he tried to show that parallelism extends to whole paragraphs which 
are arranged so as to present a mutual correspondence similar to that 
which single lines exhibit to each other, and even that entire books 
or compositions are arranged in the most systematic form. Bad 
taste will find precedents to imitate. The books of Boys show 
ingenious trifling. They attempt to find in the Bible what is not 
in it but belongs merely to the region of the imagination. Nor 
has the mania for finding parallelisms in the New Testament died 
out, as we had hoped ; for, quite recently, Forbes, in a work en- 
titled "The Symmetrical Structure of Scripture," has carried it 
much farther than Boys, into the entire Sermon on the mount, the 
Decalogue, and other passages of Scripture. The writer also at- 
tempts to point out a parallelism of numbers u which enters much 
more largely into the arrangements of Scripture than has been ge- 
nerally suspected." Of course strophes and stanzas are frequently 



432 Biblical Interpretation. 

discovered. One example may satisfy our readers. It is from 
2 Cor. xi. 22—27. 

{Are they Hebrews ? So am I. 
Are they Israelites ? So am I. 
Are they the seed of Abraham ? So am I. 

23. Are they ministers of Christ? (I speak as a fool) I am more. 

{In labours more abundant, 
In stripes above measure, 
In imprisonments more abundant, 

fin deaths oft ; 
„ . Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. 

_-' (b) < Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, 

Thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the 

^ deep: 

fin journeyings oft ; 

In perils of rivers, in perils of robbers, 

26. (b) 1 In perils from mine own countrymen, in perils from the heathen, 

1 In perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, 
(_ In perils by sea, in perils by false brethren: 

fin labour and painfulness, 
In watchings often, 

27. (a) < In hunger and thirst, 

In fastings often, 
|^In cold and nakedness. 

This is supposed to be an example of parallel lines synthetic. 

" In verse 23., the three lines marked (a) end, in the original, 
each with adverbs, and are evidently intended to form one group, as 
the first and last end with the same comparative (jrspia-aoTspcos, more 
abundantly). The two central stanzas (ver. 24, 25. (b), and 26. (b)) 
as evidently correspond, each beginning with the general heads, ' In 
deaths oft,' ' In journeyings oft,' under which respectively are 
ranged several special instances of each sort of suffering. Under 
the first head we have (ver. 24 and 25.) a triplet or stanza of three 
lines, connected by the recurrence of numeral adverbs (' five times, 
thrice, once,' &c). Under the second we have (ver. 26.) a quatrain 
or stanza of four lines, marked as forming one group by the constant 
recurrence of the word ' perils,' and each line will be observed to 
consist of two similarly constructed members, ' In perils of rivers, 
in perils of robbers' (klvBvvois 7rora[xo)v, Kivhvvois \r)<TTa>v, two gene- 
tives), ' in perils from mine own countrymen, in perils from the 
heathen,' (^Kivhvvois sk ysvov?, Kivhvvois it; sdvwv, where the connec- 
tion between the first and second substantives is made by the pre- 
position s/c, from, &c.) Of the four lines thus formed, the first and 
fourth are parallel, since in each the first member specifies perils by 
water (' perils of rivers,' ' perils by sea '), and the second by ene- 
mies, whether open ('robbers') or concealed ('false brethren'); 
while in the two central verses, journey whither the apostle may, 
among Jews or Gentiles, in the crowded city or tenantless ivilderness, 
all persons and places seem to conspire against his peace and safety. 

The last stanza (a) recurs to the subject with which the first (a) 
began, and which is thus placed first and last, as forming the strong- 
est evidence of the sincerity of his zeal as a servant of Christ, — the 









Poetical Parts of Scripture. 433 

voluntary and self-imposed labours (ev kottois c in labours,' v. 23. 
h kotto) ' in labour/ v. 27.) which he underwent in furthering the 
cause of the gospel. The alternate lines in this five-lined stanza (a) 
correspond exactly in structure. The three odd lines, the 1st, the 
3d, and the 5th, consist each of a couple of singulars, while the 2d 
and 4th are plurals, with the adverb e often ' appended to each." ' 

It is marvellous to see good and excellent men losing themselves 
in such fanciful vagaries, as if the sacred writers really intended to 
arrange their wri tings according to artificial minutia?. The Bible is 
dishonoured by every such rack applied to it. The Boyses and 
Forbeses, in following Jebb, have out-Heroclecl Herod. 

All Hebrew poetry is of four kinds, lyrical, gnomic, dramatic, 
and epic. The first is the oldest and most comprehensive. Its 
essential peculiarity consists in the form. A perfect lyric song is 
intended to be sung and played to a fixed rhythm and time. There 
are fine examples of lyrical poetry in the book of Psalms, as Psal. 
xviii. lxviii. 

Gnomic or sententious poetry proceeds from the motive to instruct, 
and is therefore calm and tranquil. The book of Proverbs furnishes 
many examples. 

Dramatic poetry is exemplified in Job and Canticles. It is dis- 
tinguished by interchange of speakers and action. 

Epic poetry, the rudiments of which like those of the gnomic and 
dramatic lie in the lyrical, was not developed till after the close of 
the canon. It is exemplified in some of the Apocryphal books, espe- 
cially Tobit and Judith. 

There can be no doubt that the great excellence of Hebrew poetry 
consists in its consecration to religion. Its truthfulness, life, energy, 
and power are divine. The loftiest religious element enters into and 
pervades it. All its pre-eminence may be traced to the source 
whence the lofty conceptions embodied were derived ; that source 
being the uncreated, inexhaustible fountain of all that is high and holy. 

The poetry of the Bible must be interpreted like all other poetry. 
Only the interpreter should constantly bear in mind that it comes 
from Him who is true and holy. It is necessary also that he should 
know its character. It is not occidental, but oriental. Its imagery 
is eastern. The writers were surrounded by influences and customs 
different from those which prevail in the west. The objects of nature 
and art were dissimilar. Their imagination too was more vivid and 
luxuriant, in accordance with the climate and productions amid 
which it was nurtured. Their temperament was essentially more 
poetic. Oriental poetry is marked by bolder metaphors and stronger 
figures than occidental. Hence the expositor should explain it in 
the light of the country and habits where it was produced. Points 
of resemblance should not be carried too far. Comparisons ought 
not to be unduly extended. Glowing descriptions, impassioned 
diction, should be treated as such, and not interpreted like prose. 
A specific meaning must not be given to phrases which are signifi- 

1 See pages 15 17. 
VOL II. F F 



434 Biblical Interpretation. 

cant only so far as they contribute to the symmetry and complete- 
ness of one harmonious whole. This is to bring down poetry near 
the region of prose. It is marvellous to see the bad taste and dul- 
ness of perception displayed by several expositors in this respect. 
They undertake to expound highly poetical works like mere prose. 
Canticles have been tortured in this matter. In like manner, the book 
of Revelation has been preverted by such commentators as Elliott, 
who cannot or will not distinguish between poetic costume or dra- 
pery and essential features having a distinct significance in them- 
selves. 

Before commencing to interpret a poetic book, it is desirable, if 
not necessary, that the expositor should have surveyed the whole 
to obtain a general view of its scope, structure, and outlines. 
When he can distribute it according to the mode in which the subject 
or subjects are treated, he may proceed to the separate and con- 
tinuous illustration of all the parts. The leading design, pecu- 
liarities, and form should first be attended to, and then other 
circumstances will more readily appear. General maxims applicable 
to all poetical works are of little or no benefit. Each book must be 
judged and examined by itself. 



CHAP. IX. 

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF TYPES. 

Befoee proceeding to speak of typical interpretation, we may 
notice some phrases of cognate import, which require a word of 
explanation. 

Allegorical interpretation is very different from the interpretation of 
allegory. Its distinguishing characteristic is to assume another sense 
in addition to that sense which is indicated and required by the 
connection, and to which for this very reason even the tropical 
expressions of the discourse appear to point as the proper meaning. 
It presupposes that another and higher sense than the obvious and 
literal one lies in the words. In its wide acceptation allegorical 
has been called symbolical interpretation, which appellation is pre- 
ferable as distinguishing it from allegorical interpretation in the spe- 
cific acceptation. It is aptly named symbolical, inasmuch as in it the 
verbal sense is merely a symbol or outward representation of another 
sense besides. Hence symbolical interpretation comprehends the 
entire genus of the tropical interpretation-method, typical, moral or 
tropological, and anagogical or mystic sometimes called spiritual. 
Truth lies at the basis of it ; something corresponding to the leading 
design and import of the Bible. 

But allegorical interpretation is also used in a restricted sense 
as nearly synonymous with typical. Properly speaking, it refers 
merely to quid credas, and thus all dogmatics find their material in it. 
Thus understood, typical interpretation is included in it. The wide 



Types. 435 

sense of allegorical or symbolical interpretation includes, quid credas, 
allegoria — moralis, quid agas, — quid speres, anagogia ; but the 
specific sense relates solely to the quid credas ; under which is 
classed typical interpretation. Let us first explain what a type is. 

A type is a person or transaction in which some later person or 
transaction is pourtrayed beforehand or symbolically represented in 
essence. 

This definition necessarily involves the fact, that there is a spiritual 
connection between the Old and New Testaments. In the Old 
Testament history appear persons and transactions which have a 
foreshadowing relation to persons and transactions in the New 
Testament. Here then is the province and sphere of typical inter- 
pretation. It is easy to see how a type is distinguished from mere 
doctrine, prophecy, or even allegory. Prophetic discourse consists 
in announcing something beforehand in ivords. Allegory, in the 
form of an allegorical prophecy, is a picture of the prophetic imagi- 
nation, consisting of symbols. But a type is a person or thing 
which adumbrates of itself a corresponding person or thing, and of 
which it may be the symbol. Hence it is something historical. 
Totus historicus est, says Flacius. 

It has been thought by not a few, of whom Rau x may be regarded 
as the representative inasmuch as he was the first who boldly 
avowed the opinion, that typical interpretation is an imaginary thing 
invented by expositors themselves. But this is a mistake. Typical 
interpretation rests on a biblical foundation and coincides with the 
view taken of the Old Testament by the primitive Christians. It 
is justified by the New Testament itself; in which a similar view is 
given of various Old Testament persons and things. The spiritual 
connection between the entire Bible is recognised in the earliest 
Christian interpretation. The following passages lay a clear and 
unmistakable basis for typical interpretation. 

In Mark ix. 13. Elias is presented as a type of John the Baptist. 
In Luke xi. 30. 32. Jesus places himself along with Jonas as a 
sign to lead to repentance. As the prophet was a sign to the 
Ninevites, so he was a sign to the Jews of that generation. Ac- 
cording to John iii. 14., compared with Numb. xxi. 9., the elevation 
of the brazen serpent in the wilderness, which when looked at with 
the eye of faith healed the serpent-bitten Israelites, was a fact 
betokening the death of Christ and its effects. In Bom. v. 14. 
Adam is termed a type (antithetic) of Christ — the one being the 
means of corruption and death, the other of salvation. In 1 Cor. x. 
several circumstances belonging to the passage of the Israelites through 
the wilderness are adduced as types of particulars in the Christian 
economy. The rock whence water flowed was Christ ; its water was 
therefore spiritual drink. The manna was spiritual meat. The 
external sensible object is to be considered in relation to the spiri- 
tual. In Heb. vi. 20 — vii. 22. there is a copious description of 
Mechizedek as a type of Christ. In the same Epistle, ix. 9., the first 

1 Freimiithige Untersuc-hungen iiber d. Typologie, 1784. 

F F 2 



436 Biblical Interpretation. 

tabernacle is termed a figure adumbrating a greater tabernacle not 
made with hands under the new dispensation. In Rev. xi. 8. a 
great city is spoken of which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt. 
The latter were types or symbols of the city to whose overthrow 
John refers. The entire Epistle to the Hebrews shows that the 
sacrifices of the Mosaic economy, which were only to last for a time 
and had no efficacy in themselves to make the conscience of the 
worshipper perfect, pointed to a future effectual redemption from 
sin. The various words indicating a typical significancy which 
occur in the New Testament are tvttos, irapaj3o\r], 7rvsvp,aTi/cbs, and 
dWrjjopovfisvov. This last is found in Galat. iv. 24., where it is 
loosely used for type. Sarah and Hagar are set forth as types ; and 
as they were historical persons not imaginary ones, they are properly 
so termed. The history there referred to is not an allegory, nor is it 
treated as such. 

These passages sufficiently show, that typical exposition is well 
founded. On this basis accordingly, interpreters soon began to build, 
and to extend the idea of types. They set themselves to find out 
many such ; and by the aid of a pious ingenuity they succeeded 
in (heir attempts. All persons and facts which seemed to present 
some correspondence were treated as typical. A coincidence in 
external circumstances was chiefly sought. It was from this excessive 
and absurd multiplication of types that the reaction took place which 
rejected them altogether. The Old Testament history had been 
treated and tortured so arbitrarily by the older exegesis, that the 
modern threw aside all typical exposition in disgust, as something 
baseless or imaginary. But this was a precipitate step, as we have 
seen. There is the very highest authority for real types. Jesus 
himself expressly sanctioned them. And his example is the best 
guide. 

It is an unquestionable fact, that by the susceptibility which the 
human mind inherently possesses of recognising God as a Creator 
and Ruler of all, man has a peculiar spirit and life implanted within 
him. Wherever one inner life and one leading idea manifest their 
operation in a number of persons, the latter have a common history 
in which a development of the common spirit takes place. But this 
development may not reach, in any of its stages, the highest and the 
complete. All steps of it are strivings after fulness or perfection, 
without satisfaction. Hence when we consider the relation of indi- 
vidual persons or the individual facts of history, we see mirrored in 
them a representation of the life and spirit fulfilled even before its 
actual realisation, not indeed in its full-orbed character, but in certain 
aspects. Persons and occurrences present themselves now and again, 
prefiguring what will finally bring about full rest to the cravings and 
aspirations of a common humanity ; so that the idea of fulfilment 
already appears in them. Such spirit was implanted in Israel. By 
its operation a continued longing after something which might give 
rest to the soul was felt. And there is a unity of the religious 
spirit under the Old and New Testaments. The history, considered 
as one tvhole, is closely connected in the manner of a great economy 






Types. 437 

or arrangement on the part of God. There is an internal bond of 
union between all the parts of it. Indeed all history tends to the 
same point — the manifestation of the divine favour, and the glorifying 
of God in his people. All reached forward to fulfilment in Christ. 
The idea lay in the bosom of the people He had selected from others, 
that all salvation can come from God alone; and this idea manifested 
itself in prefigured fulfilment in the case of various persons, institu- 
tions, and events. The latter were the means by which it gave 
expression to itself 

From these remarks it will appear that the idea of types is neces- 
sarily involved in the whole spiritual process of antecedent humanity 
as it unfolds itself, till it find its completion and resting point in 
Christ. The idea of redemption and the relations of redemption to 
the world, which shows its fulfilment in the Saviour, gave expression 
to itself beforehand in the relations, situations, characters, and 
operations of individual men and facts belonging to Old Testament 
history. This is the typical nature of them. 

A type is not constituted by the coincidence of external historical 
circumstances. There must be an internal union and resemblance. 
In looking for a type we must find some manifestation of the idea 
of fulfilment or completion. The spirit at least of fulfilment must be 
mirrored in a person or fact more or less largely. If the total signi- 
ficance of fulfilment realised by the redemption of Christ does not 
appear, a considerable portion of it must. The brazen serpent 
comes up to the greater part of the significancy ; others are much 
less complete. 

Remembering then that Christ is the sum and substance of the 
law and the prophets — that the entire development of the spiritual 
process in man reached after and tended to its fulfilment which was 
finally realised in his redemption — let us see where we are to stand 
that we may be able to get a right view of the types belonging to 
the Old Testament. We must look at the antitype. The stand-point 
of the interpreter must be the New Testament, not the Old; he 
surveys the former dispensation as depicted in the Jewish Scriptures, 
from the platform of the Christian Scriptures. 1 

We shall arrange our observations on types and typical interpre- 
tation under the following heads. 

What is included in a proper type ? 

1. Resemblance. — There must be a likeness in certain respects 
between the person or thing prefiguring, and that which it fore- 
shadows. Similarity must lie at the foundation of a type in all 
cases. 

2. That resemblance belongs to the divine arrangement. It is 
inherent in humanity viewed as possessing a religiousness from the 
hand of God. A people having certain elements of character im- 
planted in them were so dealt with by the Almighty, that the 
outward manifestation of those elements necessarily gave origin to 
types. Thus the correspondence between type and antitype may be 

1 See Lutz, Biblische Hermeneutik. § 72. 

F F 3 



438 Biblical Interpretation. 

traced to the divine intention. It was not accidental. No merely 
accidental or outward similitude can constitute a true type. It is 
possible that many points of accidental similarity may present them- 
selves. Persons and things in this world may be classified under a 
few general heads, by virtue of real or imaginary analogies. But 
the similarity between types and antitypes must enter into their very 
nature. Internal correspondence referrible to the Deity himself 
must appear. 

3. But though divine intention in the manner now explained must 
belong to the relation between type and antitype, consciousness of 
such a relation in the mind of the sacred writer is not necessary. He 
need not know or feel that there is an established correspondence 
between the thing foreshadowing and that which is prefigured. 
Consciousness of the existence of a type on the part of the writer 
who speaks of it does not enter into its nature. 

4. Neither is it needful that a typical person should have the idea 
that he was designed to be such, or that he was manifested as 
beai'ing that relation. In like manner it is unnecessary that a typical 
action or institution should have taken place with a consciousness on 
the part of the agents that such was its character. 

5. Types have respect to what is future. They shadow forth good 
things to come. They Avere not appointed to represent present 
but future realities. They were a temporary mode of instruction, 
pointing to another and clearer way of educating humanity in the 
highest truth. They were the shadows preceding the substance. 

But though they had respect to what was future, they probably 
served other purposes to the Jews. They may have been intended 
to signify to them present duties and responsibilities. This could 
only have been subordinate to their great, leading design. While 
they pointed significantly to the better dispensation to come, as their 
ultimate reference, they inculcated moral virtues and religious duties 
upon the ancient Israelites, thus serving a twofold office. They 
were teachers of things present or immediate. 

From this explanation it will be seem, that a type belongs to the 
head of 'prophecy. It is a kind of prophecy. A verbal prophecy 
predicts, whereas a type prefigures. The former describes in words 
what is about to come to pass ; the latter foreshows in its own out" 
xoard similarity a future person or event. 

6. According to some, a type is ascertained by formal recognition 
as such in the New Testament. Unless we have this express warrant 
for it, it is argued by Marsh, Stuart, and others, that it has no 
existence. If previous design and preordained connection constitute 
the typical relation, how, it is asked, can any one know it except 
from Scripture itself? Here then is a sure and safe criterion, 
whereby all fanciful resemblances, often dignified with the name of 
typical relations, are excluded. And if the rule be not accepted, all 
is uncertain. A wide door is opened to the imagination. 

That this view is inadequate and narrow, will be seen from the 
following considerations. 

(a.) Various places in the New Testament intimate, or expressly 



Types. 439 

assert, that most of the institutions peculiar to the Old prefigured 
spiritual things under the New Economy. The Epistle to the 
Hebrews plainly shows that the entire Levitical law with its sacri- 
fices, rites, and priests, foreshadowed better things. Comp. x. 1. &c, 
vii. 11 — 22., viii. 1 — 13., ix. 1 — x. 18. The same view is given by 
Paul in the Epistle to the Colossians ii. 17. The Epistle to the Gala- 
tians has it also (Galat. iii. iv.) If then the general character of an entire 
economy be typical, while the various parts of it are no where ex- 
plained in the New Testament so as to show their spiritual correla- 
tives, any interpreter has no more certain guide than he who holds it 
unnecessary to quote the express testimony of Scripture in favour of 
one thing or person foreshadowing another. Even when insisting on 
having the testimony of an inspired writer on behalf of the reality 
of types, an expositor is not a whit better qualified for unfolding the 
spiritual significancy of the Mosaic law generally than one who thinks 
that such testimony is not every where necessary to warrant a belief 
in their existence. 

(b.) It is admitted that types partake of the nature of prophecy. 
Now in order to connect the thing or person described in the prophecy 
as future with its counterpart, we do not require the exposition of 
the Scripture writers themselves. A prophecy is not said in Scripture 
in most cases, to be fulfilled in a person or event even where we have 
reason to believe that it is so. No one dreams of demanding the 
express testimony of an inspired writer for the purpose of demon- 
strating the meaning of what is fulfilled. What was predicted is not 
identified with its counterpart when the latter takes place. Why 
then should a different rule be applied to types ? Why should their 
spiritual sense be every where pointed out by the Scripture writers 
themselves ? Are we not warranted in assuming that there are 
predictions in the Old Testament which were at least partially 
fulfilled in circumstances and persons belonging to the New, without 
its being expressly said that they were so fulfilled ? In like manner, 
may it not be inferred that some types are not indicated in the New 
Testament which must nevertheless have been really such ? Human 
language is somewhat ambiguous and obscure. Especially is that of 
very ancient writings liable to misunderstanding, when they treat of 
subjects in themselves dark. The prophetic Scriptures have this 
character. We cannot always fix their meaning or determine their 
scope. There is no key to the interpretation of prophecy in the 
New Testament. Neither is there, in many instances, an express 
declaration that a passage is prophetical in its nature ; so that we 
may sometimes mistake history for prophecy, and vice versa. Types 
should be regarded in the same manner. There is no other method 
of recognising and interpreting a prophecy than by a careful, con- 
scientious study of the Scriptures themselves. And in the study of 
the Old Testament types, we must take as our guide the principles 
and examples which the New Testament writers have set forth. The 
specimens of typical interpretation recorded in the sacred volume 
must be taken to fix the meaning of other types. The whole system 



4 40 Biblical Interpretation. 

with its divinely arranged connections must be deciphered by the aid 
of ascertained expositions. 

(c.) The substantial unity existing between the old and new dis- 
pensations arising from the one great Agent or Logos presiding over 
both — the preparatory character of the one, its preordained premoni- 
tions of things to come, its subservience to a higher purpose to be 
revealed more fully thereafter, its emblematical nature and symbolic 
institutions — all form a presumption in favour of extending the region 
of types further than the few examples pointed out in the New Tes- 
tament. Indeed the Epistle to the Hebrews fairly warrants a large 
extension, if not beyond what New Testament authority sanctions, 
at least beyond what it specifies and explains. The true-minded inter- 
preter must look out from the platform of the New Testament care- 
fully and soberly, to the material figures which move and act in the 
Old. And in beholding them, it is not sufficient to find some super- 
ficial resemblance. It is not enough to discover a spiritual idea in 
the earthly figure. There must be an interior, established connection 
between one thing and another, or between one character and the 
ideal of human perfection presented in Jesus, which shows itself to 
have been designed. The likeness must be one that appears from 
its very nature to have been intended as prefigurative. That it is 
capable of being accommodated to the appearance of having an adum- 
bratory nature, is not enough. According to the established laws of 
interpretation, it must prove itself by its very nature and aspect to 
be typical. This it will do to the spiritually minded expositor, who 
takes for his guide acknowledged types, and exami n es passages in their 
scriptural connection. 

We may instance David as a type of the Messiah in many points. 
Yet there is no New Testament authority for believing him to be 
so. The paschal lamb was a type of Christ, though not affirmed to 
be so ; for the fact that he is called a lamb is no proof that he was 
the antitype denoted by the paschal lamb. Canaan typified the 
heavenly country, the abode of the righteous for ever, though this is 
not stated. 

Those who adopt the rule that unless we have the authority of the 
sacred writers themselves, it cannot be maintained that this or that 
person or thing mentioned in the Old Testament is a type of Christ 
on account of the resemblance perceptible between them, are not 
more accurate or exact in their list of types than others who object 
to the narrowness of the canon. For example, it is said by some 
of them that the feast of Pentecost, which commemorated the giving 
of the law on Mount Sinai, prefigured the effusion of the Holy Spirit 
on the apostles, who were thus enabled to promulgate the gospel 
throughout the then known world (Acts ii. 1 — 11.). This is 
erroneous, for the feast of Pentecost was instituted to commemorate 
the ingathering of the fruits of harvest. It is also affirmed, that the 
feast of tabernacles typifies the final restoration of the Jews, which 
is incorrect. Nor were " the privileges of the Jews types of those 
enjoyed by all true Christians ; " and it is mere fiction to aver with 
Maeknight, that " the relation of the Jews to God as his people, 



Types. 441 

signified by the name Israelite (Rom. ix. 4.), prefigured the more 
honorable relation in which believers, the true Israel, stand to God. 
— Their adoption as the sons of God, and the privileges they were 
entitled to by that adoption, were types of believers being made 
partakers of the divine nature by the renewing of the Holy Ghost, 
and of their title to the inheritance of heaven. — The residence of the 
glory, first in the tabernacle and then in the temple, was a figure of 
the residence of God by his Spirit in the Christian church, His temple 
on earth, and of His eternal residence in that church brought to per- 
fection in heaven. — The covenant ivith Abraham was the new or 
gospel covenant, the blessings of which were typified by the temporal 
blessings promised to him and to his natural seed ; and the covenant 
at Sinai, whereby the Israelites, as the worshippers of the true God, 
were separated from the idolatrous nations, was an emblem of the 
final separation of the righteous from the wicked. — In the giving of 
the law and the formation of the Israelites into a nation or community, 
was represented the formation of the city of the living God, and 
of the general assembly of the church of the first-born." l In all 
this list of types, there is no real type ; yet it is approved and 
adopted by adherents of the rule laid down by Marsh. It is even 
held by Fairbairn, who rejects that rule. 2 On the whole, we are 
satisfied that the view in question requires a criterion too definite, 
and one which the entire doctrine of types repudiates. Exegetical 
proof of individual types cannot and was not meant to be forth- 
coming. If the interpreter has an eye to discern spiritual things, 
types will naturally present themselves to him. The collective idea 
which lies in them arises out of the Old Testament history in a 
manner obvious and unmistakable, because one and the same spirit 
acts harmoniously in the former and latter dispensations. 

But though objecting to the view under discussion as limiting the 
operation of types far too much, we are no advocates for the imagi- 
nary resemblances which have been dignified with the name of 
typical relations. The excessive use of types cannot be too strongly 
reprobated ; for it brings the Scriptures into contempt. Wild fancies, 
far-fetched ingenuities, allegorical conceits, should be rejected without 
ceremony. The mediaeval and scholastic writers carried this system 
to a ridiculous excess. Nor was it abandoned after the Reformation. 
It has continued down to the present time. A few specimens of it 
will suffice. 

Dalilah designates the church for which Christ died. 

She may also signify the synagogue. She shore Samson when she 
crucified Christ on Calvary. 3 

Samson was a type of Christ. His nativity was foretold by an 
angel of God ; so were the conception and nativity of Jesus Christ 
foretold by an angel. Samson was sanctified from the womb ; so was 
Christ much more. He conquered a stout lion in the desert ; so 

1 Macknight on Rom ix. 4. note 1. 

2 On the Typology of Scripture, vol. i. p. 161. 

3 Laureti Sylva Allegoriarum, A'ol. i p 304. 



442 Biblical Interpretation. 

Christ overcame the roaring lion, the devil, in the wilderness. He 
slew many of God's enemies by his death ; so Jesus Christ by 
death overcame sin, Satan, hell, and the grave. 1 

His carrying the door and posts of the gate of Gaza to the top of 
a hill that is before Hebron signifies Christ's resurrection. His loving 
a woman in the valley of Sorek, called Dalilah, was a type of Christ's 
loving the Gentile Church. 2 

Noah was a type of Christ. 

Noah was a saviour, nay, in a good sense, the saviour of the 
world ; Christ is a Saviour, the only Saviour of the world. 

Noah was a preacher of righteousness; Christ was the same. 
Those that rebelled against the one were destroyed by water ; such as 
resisted the other shall be destroyed by fire. 

Noah built an ark; so Christ builds his church. The former 
built according to the commandment of God ; the latter did every 
thing according to the commandment received from his Father. Noah 
took many trees to build the ark ; so Christ takes many believers, 
called trees of righteousness, to build his church. 

" Some clean and some unclean beasts were received into 
Noah's ark ; so some holy and sanctified persons, and some unsanc- 
tified ones are received into Christ's church, though not by Christ's 
appointment." 

All not in the ark perished ; so all who have not faith in Jesus 
Christ shall perish eternally. 

Noak's ark was tossed on the rough waters and yet was preserved ; 
so the church is tossed on the waves of a tempestuous world and yet 
preserved. 

Noah was the great repairer of the world ; so Christ is the glo- 
rious repairer of the world. 

Noah sent a dove out of the ark to see whether the waters were 
abated, who returned with an olive-branch in her mouth ; so Christ 
sends forth the Spirit, called a dove, who brings tidings to believing 
souls that the wrath of God is appeased, &c. 3 

Moses was a type of Christ in many particular actions of h's life. 
He married an Ethiopian, a stranger, a black ; so Christ espoused 
the Gentiles who were strangers to God, and, by reason of sin, as 
black as hell could make them. He sweetened the bitter waters of 
Marah by a tree cast into it ; so Christ sweetens all our afflictions 
by means of his cross. He led Israel through the Red Sea ; Christ 
leads his church through a sea of tribulation. As Moses was trans- 
figured in Mount Sinai and seemed so glorious that the children of 
Israel could not behold his face ; so Jesus Christ was also transfigured 
on Mount Tabor so as his disciples were amazed and wist not what 
to say. 4 

Bethlehem signifies the church which contains Christ, and the 
Sacred Scriptures, as it were, a house of bread. It may also repre- 






1 Keach on the Metaphors, p 961. ed. 1779. 

2 See Ridgley's Bodv of Divinity, vol. ii. p. 222. ed. 1814. 

3 Keach, pp. 956, 957. 4 Ibid p. 






Types. 443 

sent monasteries where there are persons who take solid food, whence 
is to be taken he who is anointed as a King, i. e. a preacher. 1 

Cyrene is the church, where is the vocation of Christ, into which 
God transplants those of the proud heretics whom he converts. 2 

Sodom and the Sodomites surrounding Lot's house are a type of 
Jerusalem and of the Jews who oppressed Christ. 3 

The table of shewbread was a type of Christ, because it was 
covered over with gold and a crown about it, noting the purity of 
Christ's humanity with the glory of his deity and majesty of his 
kingdom : because it had food set upon it, which none were to eat 
of but the priest, signifying that spiritual nourishment which is in 
Christ, which none receive or partake of but believers only, or the 
royal priesthood of the faithful. The bread was always to be upon 
the table, signifying in Christ there is food continually for our souls. 
There was much bread, twelve cakes or square loaves, signifying in 
Christ there is food or nourishment enough for all who see a necessity 
for him ; " or it doth show how plentifully God feeds his elect ; his 
poor shall not want bread, his table is always spread, always richly 
and abundantly furnished." 4 

The burnt offering of fowls was a type of Christ, because they were 
turtles or pigeons signifying his meekness and innocency. " The neck 
of the fowl was to be pinched with the nail that the blood might go out, 
but not that the head should be plucked off from the body ; signifying 
how Christ should die and shed his blood, yet, thereby his deity, as 
the head or principal part, should not be divided from his humanity ; 
nor yet by his death should he who is our head be taken from his 
church, but should rise again, and be with them by his Spirit for ever. 
The blood thereof was strained or pressed out at the side of the altar 
before it was plucked and laid upon the altar to be burned ; signi- 
fiying thereby the straining or pressing out of Christ's blood, in his 
grievous agony in the garden, before he was taken and stripped to be 
crucified," &c. 5 

The sacrifice of the red heifer was a type of Christ, because the 
colour of this beast was red, signifying his human nature and parti- 
cipation of our afflictions and the bloodiness of his agony ; because 
she must be without blemish and upon whom never yoke came, 
signifying the perfect holiness of Christ, who never bore the yoke of 
sinfulness nor was subject to the laws of man ; because the heifer 
was burnt without the host, and her blood sprinkled seven times 
before the tabernacle of the congregation, signifying Christ's suffer- 
ing without the gates of Jerusalem. 6 

In his Dictionary of the Bible, Brown of Haddington enumerates 
twenty-nine typical persons, fourteen typical classes of persons, 
nineteen occasional typical things, twenty miscellaneous typical insti- 
tutions, six typical places, ten typical utensils, fourteen typical 
offerings, ten typical seasons, and eight typical purifications, making 
in all one hundred and thirty types. But this list is as nothing 

1 Laureti Sylva Allegoriarunis vol. i. p. 380. 2 Ibid. p. 303. 

3 Ibid. vol. ii. p. 936. 4 Keach, p. 969. . 

s Ibid. p. 972. 6 Ibid. p. 977. 



444 Biblical Interpretation. 

compared with the immense enumeration found in Laureti Sylva 
Allegoriarum. 

It is strange that a recent writer on typology, while objecting to 
the fanciful resemblances accumulated by older writers, should 
approach their method himself. Extremes meet. Contending as 
he does for Scripture authority to distinguish what is typical from 
what is not, he often converts his oivn theological ideas into the 
warrant. Thus we are told that "the cherubim were set up for 
representations to the eye of faith of earth's living creaturehood, and 
more especially of its rational and immortal, though fallen head, with 
reference to the better hopes and destiny in prospect. From the 
very first they gave promise of a restored condition to the fallen ; 
and by the use afterwards made of them, the light became clearer 
and more distinct," &c, &c. l All this is groundless and far-fetched. 
The tree of life was also a type of immortal life and paradisaical 
delights yet to be enjoyed by the people of God in Christ. 2 Enoch 
" is undoubtedly to be viewed as a type of Christ." 3 Noah 
Avas the type of him Avho was to come, in whom the righteousness of 
God should be perfected. 4 Abraham was " the type at once of the 
subjective and the objective design of the covenant, or in other 
words, of the kind of persons who were to be the subjects and 
channels of blessing, and of the kind of inheritance with which they 
were to blessed." 5 Pharaoh's destruction was typical of Antichrist's. 6 
The tabernacle was " a type of Christ, as God manifest in the flesh, 
and reconciling flesh to God." 7 Such things as these in the region 
of a biblical typology clearly indicate that a certain school of divines 
create types in abundance by the aid of their peculiar theology. 
Thinking that they magnify Christ and his dispensation in this 
manner, they virtually convert Judaism into Christianity, instead of 
keeping them in their proper relations. They mistake the essential, 
concrete thing which constitutes a type. 

Types have been variously divided. Keach 8 divides them into two 
kinds, viz. prophetical and historical. Writers also speak of natural, 
moral, legal, and other types. Most of these appellations, however, 
are either useless or improper. Thus the name prophetical types is 
liable to suggest an idea which is incorrect ; because many so called 
are merely symbolical actions. 

Perhaps the division of Chevallier is as good as any other. It is 
the following : — 

1. Those which are supported by accomplished prophecy delivered 
previously to the appearance of the antitype ; as Moses, Joshua, the 
High Priest (Zech. iii. 8.). 

2. Those supported by accomplished prophecy delivered in the 
person of the antitype ; as the brazen serpent, the manna eaten in 
the desert, the paschal sacrifice, the maraculous preservation of Jonah 
in the great fish. 

3. Those which in Scripture are expressly declared or clearly as- 



1 Fairbairn's Typology, second ed. vol. i. pp. 240, 241. 2 Pp. 214. et. segq. 

3 P. 278. 4 P. 295. 5 P. 306. 

6 Vol. ii. p. 56. 7 Vol ii. p. 236. 6 On Metaphors, p. 328. ed. 1779 






Types. 445 

sumed to be typical, after the prefigured events had taken place ; as 
the numerous types contained in the Levitical priesthood and sacri- 
fices ; as also, Adam, Melchizedek, Joshua the son of Nun, David, 
Solomon, &C. 1 

In the interpretation of types the following rules or cautions 
should be observed. 

1. The analogy between type and antitype should not be urged 
beyond the point or points which Scripture warrants. Thus Jonah 
was a type of Christ only in reference to his being three days un- 
harmed in the belly of the fish, and coming forth at the end of that 
period alive and vigorous. But his disposition, conduct, and charac- 
ter, have no concern with the typical relation he bore in the one part 
of his history we have mentioned. Indeed persons are never types 
of Messiah in their personal and private characters. If they were 
official persons, they are types only in their official capacity. Thus 
the prophets as a class prefigured Christ the great prophet. So too 
the priests and kings of the Old Testament. And with respect to 
persons who filled none of these offices, but occupied some public 
situation, they were types of Messiah in that public position, not in 
their private capacity. Thus Joseph in the leading circumstances of 
his outward history, his trials, deliverance, and exaltation, prefigures 
in outline the history of Jesus Christ. 

From the very nature of the case it is evident that there were 
many things in the type which could not take place in the antitype, 
because the persons and things related are earthly and spiritual, im- 
perfect and perfect, respectively. Thus the Levitical priesthood 
prefigured the priesthood of Christ. But the high priest had to offer 
sacrifices for his own sins as well as those of others ; which cannot 
apply to the antitype. The Levitical priesthood was weak and un- 
profitable, attributes which do not characterise the Redeemer. In 
every case we must examine the exact point or points in which the 
relation between type and antitype was meant to appear; because 
some things are peculiar to the one which have no place in the other. 
There is commonly more in the type than the antitype ; and vice 
versa in the antitype than the type. There may be more points of 
resemblance, which, as being merely accidental, do not enter into the 
typical relation. A type as such contains no more than the antitype, 
else the shadow would convey more than the substance, when by its 
very nature it shoidd convey less. But yet a type may contain more 
than the antitype. All the additional points it may have do not 
belong to it in its character of type. It is natural that the antitype 
should be always superior to the type. Its import is fuller, higher, 
and more comprehensive. 

2. No doctrine can be fundamental which is founded solely on 
typical analogy. All necessary truth is adduced in plain language. It 
is not concealed under the veil of types and shadows. These indeed 
serve to illustrate and confirm the great doctrines of salvation, show- 
ing that they were taught in a certain way to the Jews of old. But 
they do not reveal them for the first time, nor exclusively. They 

1 Hulsean Lecture, p. 76. 



446 Biblical Interpretation. 

strengthen our belief in the truth and reality of what is otherwise 
learned. 

Types have often been identified with symbols. But though 
they agree in their genus, as Warburton has shown, they differ 
in their species. They are equally representations. While a type 
always represents something future; a symbol represents a thing 
past, present, or future. The images of the cherubim over the 
mercy-seat were symbols. The water in baptism is a symbol. The 
bread and wine in the eucharist are also symbols. But the baptismal 
water as well as the sacramental elements are not types. A type 
has always reference to what is future, and is therefore a virtual 
prediction of its antitype. But the symbols in question predict 
nothing. They are mere emblems, setting forth spiritual truth by 
outward representations. 1 

The two general observations which we have just given to aid in 
the interpretation of types, are all that appear to us safe or appro- 
priate in the way of rules. Keach, however, has given no fewer 
than nine " canons expounding types." Most of them are useless, 
such as, " There must be a fit application of the type to the anti- 
type" (No. 4.) ; " The wicked as such are by no means to be made 
types of Christ" (No. 7.); "One thing is sometimes a type and 
figure of the two things, even contrary things, but in diverse re- 
spects" (No. 8.); "In types and antitypes an enallage, permu- 
tation, or change sometimes happens, as when the thing figured and 
adumbrated takes to itself the name of the figure, shadow, or type ; 
and on the contrary, when the type and figure of the thing repre- 
sented takes to itself the name of the antitype " (No. 9.). 2 

Symbolical actions have often been called prophetical types. But 
this is to identify things which differ. Thus the prophet Isaiah went 
naked to prefigure the fatal destruction of the Egyptians and Ethio- 
pians (Isa. xx. 2.). The hiding of a girdle in a rock on the banks 
of the Euphrates, which being afterwards taken thence proved to be 
rotten, was symbolical (Jer. xiii. 1 — 7.). The abstaining from mar- 
riage, mourning, and feasting, to indicate woful calamities about to 
befall the Israelites for their sins (Jer. xvi. 2 — 8.) was of the same 
nature. Jeremiah was also commanded to break a potter's vessel in 
the valley of Hinnom, to intimate the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer. 
xix.). By making bands and yokes, and putting them first on his own 
neck and then sending them to the kings of Edom, Moab, Amnion, 
and Tyre, he declared their subjugation to the yoke of Nebucha- 
dnezzar (Jer. xxvii. 2 — 8.). Ahijah rent his new garment into 
twelve pieces and gave them to Jeroboam to signify that the 
kingdom would be rent (1 Kings xi. 30.). In like manner Elisha 
informed Joash by a symbolical action, of future events (2 Kings 
xiii. 14 — 19.). So too Agabus, as recorded in the New Testament, 
bound his hands and feet with Paul's girdle, intimating the apostle's 
captivity at Jerusalem. 

" These and similar acts of the prophets have been called typical, 
and unquestionably they have a striking resemblance to such as are 

1 See Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses, book ix. chap. 2. vol. vi. p 165. 

2 Pp. 233. et. seqq. 



Prophecy. 447 

typical. In common with types, they are actions as distinguished 
from words; they are symbolical and prophetical actions. Hence we 
commonly find them classed under the head of -prophetical types. But 
notwithstanding these points of resemblance, the two are not identi- 
cal. The significant acts in question were avowedly performed for a 
specific purpose, and with reference for the most part to some event 
or events near at hand. In every case they were insulated acts, and 
not interwoven into the ordinary transactions of the prophets' lives. 
Indeed they had no relation to the prophet himself; he performed 
them in an assumed character and with exclusive reference to future 
events. But typical actions, properly so called, arise directly out of 
the transactions in which the typical person is engaged. They often 
form a part of the ordinary occurrences of his life. The character in 
which he performs them is his own proper character, and not an 
assumed one. The acts themselves are performed without any con- 
sciousness of then prospective and prophetical reference^ and the 
persons or events which they prefigure are remote." 1 



CHAP. X. 

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF PROPHECY. 

The prophets were persons who possessed the Spirit of God in a 
manner and for an end somewhat peculiar; at least in a manner 
which distinguished them from others in whom the same Spirit was 
active. The gifts they possessed were intended for the general 
benefit of the people and of humanity. They were the bearers of 
the divine mind to their contemporaries and to posterity. They 
unfolded the purposes of Jehovah, delivering messages from heaven 
to their nation. 

The function of the prophets was of a more comprehensive nature 
than foresight of the future. They were foretellers of things about 
to happen ; but this was merely a part of the duties included in their 
divine mission. They revealed the will of God not only respecting 
the future, but the past and present also. They were not mere pre- 
dictors of coming events. Rather were they media of communica- 
tion between God and man generally. Hence prophecy includes 
prediction, but is not equivalent to it, being of wider range. It is 
necessary to attend to the true idea of a prophet (W?3) since it has 
been frequently limited to the foretelling of future events, to the 
great injury of prophetic interpretation. Thus Dr. Pye Smith 
describes a prophecy to be " a declaration made by a creature, 
whether human or of a superior order, under the inspiration and com- 
mission of the omniscient God, relating to an event or series of 
events which have not taken place at the time the prophecy is 
uttered, which could not have been certainly foreknown by any 

1 See Muenscher on Typical Interpretation, in the American Biblical Repository for 
1841, p. 105. 



448 Biblical Interpretation. 

science or wisdom of man, but which will take place in the visible 
dispensations of the divine government, in the present state." 1 Here 
a definition much too restricted is given. The modern use of the 
terms prophet and prophecy has been too closely adhered to. Many 
prophecies are predictions, but not all. The prophets uttered dis- 
courses respecting things past, present, and future ; though most 
related to the time to come. They belonged to an economy which 
was prospective in its character — a preparation for better things to 
come. Their mission had a chief leaning towards the future, be- 
cause it was a part of an introductory dispensation. 2 

In proceeding to the interpretation of Old Testament prophecy 
two things must be assumed as certain. It contains the word 
of God — religious ideas properly and truly so called. The word of 
the Lord proceeded from the mouth of the prophets ; and as this is 
a spiritual thing, only the expositor who is spiritual can rightly 
perceive the fact. As soon as he is brought into a spiritual condition 
he will readily acknowledge the word of Jehovah as having been in 
the prophets, and therefore embodied in their written oracles. Again, 
we read in the New Testament that Christ himself said, " All things 
must be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the 
prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning me" (Luke xxiv. 44.) He 
also spake to the two disciples thus : " O fools and slow of heart to 
believe all that the prophets have spoken ! Ought not Christ to have 
suffered these things, and to enter into his glory ? And beginning 
at Moses, he expounded unto them in all the Scriptures the things 
concerning himself. (Luke xxiv. 25 — 27.) These passages imply 
that the prophets of the Old Testament testified of Christ. The 
essence of their communications had respect to him. If then they 
bare witness of the Messiah to come, the spirit and contents of their 
announcements are in unison with the spirit of Christ — with his 
doctrine, his work, his entire manifestation — and consequently with 
the contents and spirit of the New Testament generally. This 
connection the interpreter will recognise. It is confirmed by histo- 
rical evidence ; for Christ himself declared it, while primitive Chris- 
tianity found its nourishment in the prophecies. Christ and his 
apostles not only refer to the prophets but also profess the oneness 
of spirit between them and themselves. 

Since then, what was truly and positively divine dwelt in the pro- 
phets and pervaded their functions, a question arises respecting the 
relation of the divine and human in them. In the exhibition of their 
prophecies, what influence is to be ascribed to the one and to the 
other, respectively ? This point is not unimportant in its bearings on 
the hermeneutics of prophecy. The problem is both interesting and 
momentous. 

On one side, the passivity of the human is maintained. It is 
argued that the mind of a prophet in conceiving, and in uttering, 

1 On the Principles of Interpretation as applied to the Prophecies of Holy Scripture, 
pp 9, 10. 

2 See Alexander's Introduction to his Commentary on Isaiah, p. 9. et segq. Glasgow 
edition. 



Prophecy. 449 

either orally or in writing, his oracles, was wholly passive. The 
human element was entirely suppressed. It was the divine which 
alone manifested itself. What the prophets thought and what they 
expressed — both the matter and form of their communications — 
was exclusively divine. They were only human conveyancers of 
divine messages ; organs or vessels through which divine truth was 
communicated to men. Lifted out of and above the present, and all 
historical relations, their images and figures are full of divine 
mysteries which man could not have produced. They were mechani- 
cally acted upon by the Spirit of God, like instruments in the hands 
of musicians. 

Another view is, that both the human and the divine cooperated. 
The human spirit of the prophets was active, as well as the divine 
Spirit which animated the will and intellect. Hence historical and 
outward circumstances were not lost sight of, or swallowed up in the 
exclusive working of the supernatural. 

We fear that the subject is one which scarcely admits of a satis- 
factory determination either way. Neither view seems to be exclu- 
sively right. When set over against one another, we cannot adopt 
either to the entire rejection of its opposite. But still the arguments 
clearly point to the latter opinion as the more probable. Let us 
briefly glance at the principal phenomena belonging to the pro- 
phecies themselves, which warrant us in believing that the minds of 
the men were not wholly passive. 

(<?.) It is not difficult to distinguish the ideas to which utterance is 
given from the mode in which they are adduced. The diction, dress, 
and figures refer to existing manners and customs. They partake 
of the historical. They belong to the material, which they serve to 
present to the hearer or reader in an intelligible method. Prophecy 
includes consciousness of the actually present, connected with an 
intimate participation in it. Look at its materials or component 
parts. Is not the characteristic method in which it develops itself 
drawn from the present or past ? Has it not a constant reference to 
the actual and definite ? But if man's natural powers of conception 
and reflection had been entirely passive, this peculiarity would not 
have appeared. Had the prophets been passive organs, through 
whom communications from above were conveyed, would the mate- 
rials have been coloured and pervaded by such historical character ? 
In consequence of the peculiar conformation belonging to prophecy, it 
is generally proposed as a caution to hermeneutical writers, and 
rightly so, not to lose sight of the historical character of these 
oracles ; not to look for mere allegory and mystery in them ; but to 
follow the historical interpretation as far as it will safely lead. We 
believe, therefore, that the minds of the prophets were active and 
conscious, because of the mode in which their ideas are communicated. 
It is no ideal form which belongs to and serves to symbolise those 
ideas, but one drawn directly from circumstances in which the pro- 
phets themselves moved and lived, or from known history. 

(b.) We have no reason to believe that the divine Spirit ordinarily 
acts upon the human mind in any other method than by uniting his 

VOL. II. G G 



450 Biblical Interpretation. 

influence with it, and elevating it to a higher and holier tone than it 
could otherwise reach. The divine Spirit does not supersede or set 
aside the use of the natural powers, but quickens and purifies them, 
so that they can see much farther and higher. This at least, was com- 
monly the case ; though there are doubtless exceptions to which we 
shall allude hereafter. When we consider the various phenomena 
presented in the prophecies, they are explicable by means of the 
indwelling irvsyfia (spirit) in connection with the natural faculties. It 
was the Spirit that enabled prophets to speak in the diversified strains 
of condemnation, admonition, and comfort relating to the present and 
the future, by acting upon their mental powers with unusual force, 
and thus stimulating them to give the' merely ideal contents of a 
divine message a practically intelligible character. 

But are not predictions of future events included in the general 
idea of prophecy? Undoubtedly, though it is a narrow view to 
regard the prophets solely as the predictors of things future. And 
can the explanation which has just been given satisfy the condition 
of prophecies as the predictions of what was to take place thereafter ? 
Here it is necessary to distinguish theocratic predictions from such as 
are special. The latter refer to definite occurrences and persons. In 
relation to general theocratic announcements belonging to the future, 
they can be sufficiently explained in the method already proposed. 
Such glances at the future were general. In the devlopment of 
the theocracy and of human nature as they knew and witnessed it, the 
prophets saw with spiritual penetration that there must be periods of 
declension and corruption in the morals of the people, times in which 
they might easily fall a prey to watchful enemies around. They saw 
that the people must be scattered, but would again be renewed by 
God ; that a true and spiritual worship should hereafter be introduced, 
and the service of the Most High be a pure and holy service wherein 
his people should delight. All the prophets have such general inti- 
mations, pointing to a glorious period to be realised in the future, as 
the ultimate hope of the pious. And for these vague anticipations 
or premonitions of future blessings, it is not necessary that the mind 
of a prophet should be wholly passive, or that his powers of reflec- 
tion should be suspended; it is enough that the divine and the 
human cooperated ; that the Spirit of God so acted with and by 
the natural powers of the men themselves, that they saw the coming 
fortune and fate of humanity with clearer vision than the ordinary 
class of enlightened Israelites. Inasmuch as they lived and acted for 
the welfare of the community, being watchmen concerned for the 
common interests of all, they were aided from above to take more com- 
prehensive and higher views than their contemporaries. General theo- 
cratic predictions therefore are to be explained on the same principle 
as the oracles of the prophets which concern present things. In them 
too we see the divine and the human commingled. 1 

But special predictions cannot be accounted for in this manner. 
When we find, for example, that the fate of an individual, the de- 
struction of a city or people, is announced with historical definiteness, 

1 See Lutz's Biblische Hermeneutik, § 73. p. 396. et seqq. 



Prophecy. 45 1 

we must believe that the knowledge was supernaturally given. "We 
concede to Riickert 1 , Lutz 2 , and others, that there are comparatively 
few predictions of this nature. In respect of number, they are sub- 
ordinate to those of which we have just spoken. We allow also, 
that they do not bear the same intimate relation to the idea and 
essence of the prophetic office. They are not of the same importance 
with those general theocratic predictions which involve what is great 
and important for humanity. Yet they must not be overlooked, 
explained away, or unduly depreciated, as they are by Lutz. The 
passages which exhibit them cannot be justly charged with interpola- 
tion. They form an important exception to the other prophecies, 
and should not therefore be left out of account in determining the 
character of prophecy generally. Instead of attempting to explain 
them in the way already presented, or of subordinating them so much 
to the rest of prophecy as to decide upon its nature without them, we 
are rather inclined to believe that in respect to them, the divine 
entirely overruled the human, so that the natural faculties of the 
prophets had no share in suggesting the knowledge contained in them. 
God revealed certain things to the prophets at various times that 
totally surpassed all their apprehensions, in receiving as well as 
uttering which they must have been passive. It is remarkable, how- 
ever, that these predictions are obscure, difficult of explanation, and 
comparatively few. Prophecy cannot be judged of by them either 
exclusively or chiefly. They are not the rule but the exception. 

In thus maintaining that the human was not permanently or 
generally suppressed in the prophets, we are in no danger of en- 
countering opposition from a leading passage in 2 Peter i. 19 — 21., 
where we read that no prophecy of the Scripture " is of any private 
interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will 
of man : but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the 
Holy Ghost." It is implied in these words that the human was 
attracted, elevated, informed by the divine, but not suppressed. The 
prophets spake as they were carried along (fapo/isvoi) by the Holy 
Ghost, not violently borne onward, as Hengstenberg supposes, but 
thoughtfully, intelligently, with a degree of self-possession. They 
were inspired ; the nature of that inspiration chiefly consisting in 
an elevating influence on the mental powers, not in holding those 
powers in abeyance. 3 

In opposition to this theory of Old Testament prophecy, Heng- 
stenberg has ingeniously developed another, resting on the old, 
mechanical inspiration-idea. According to this writer, the prophets 
were in an ecstatic state, in which their intellect and consciousness 
were held in abeyance ; being forcibly acted upon by the Spirit of 
God, and so made the passive organs of divine communications. In 
favour of this he refers to many passages, such as those in which it h 
said that the prophets employed music ; in which the hand of God oi 
the Spirit of God came or fell upon them; as also 2 Peter i. 21. &c. He 
adduces Numb. xii. 5 — 8., where a distinction is drawn between the 

1 Die Propheten des Alten und Neuen Testaments, p. 310. et seqq. 

2 Biblische Hermeneutik, p. 403. 3 See Lutz, pp. 403, 404. 



452 Biblical Interpretation. 

revelations made to Moses and to the prophets. The former re- 
ceived his communications directly or immediately — " mouth to 
mouth," as it is in the original Hebrew ; the latter in vision. The 
same thing is shown by the names seers, CfcO, D^n ; and from its 
being said that the prophets obtained inspiration in dreams also. If 
they obtained inspiration in this manner, they were in an extraordi- 
nary state. By means of this ecstatic condition, Hengstenberg 
explains the following peculiarities of Old Testament prophecies. 1 

1. The prophecies are nothing but fragments. The divine mes- 
sengers uttered no more than what was presented to them in internal 
vision ; and all that was so communicated was merely what was 
suitable in the circumstances. This applies to the Messianic pro- 
phecies in particular. 

2. Every thing was set before them as present. It was actually 
before their inner vision. Hence they speak of persons and oc- 
currences belonging to a remote future as if they were present. 
Hence too their inexactness in the use of tenses. Since they saw 
things in time not in space, no specific marks of time can be ex- 
pected from them. Hence also the distant future was unknown 
to them, unless they received a peculiar revelation on the point. 
Accordingly these prophecies are characterised by the fact that 
occurrences separated from one another by wide intervals of time 
appear continuous. They were presented together, and in succession. 
The means by which the successive nature of the occurrences may be 
distinguished are these. 

(«.) Definite notices of time were announced to the prophets in 
certain cases, such as the seventy years' exile in Babylon to Je- 
remiah. In Joel iii. 1. (ii. 28. English version), the Messianic 
period is introduced with p *3D8, aftenvard. 

(b.) A comparison of passages in which events are related sepa- 
rately that are united in the one under examination. 

(c.) The prophet sometimes took his stand-point in the nearest 
future, to survey thence the distant future, as Isaiah in the latter 
part of his book takes his position in the Babylonian exile, and in 
the 53rd chapter between the sufferings and glorification of the 
Redeemer. 

(d.) The fulfilment in history of some events shows what still re- 
mains to be accomplished in the future. 

3. If all their disclosures respecting the future were made to the 
prophets in vision, they must have been given to them in images. 
And these images were taken out of the circle of their ideas and the 
outward relations in which they lived. 2 

Such is a very condensed view of the manner in which Heng- 
stenberg unfolds and supports his theory of prophecy. Plausible and 
ingenious as it is, it is liable to grave objection. There are weak points 
in it. What Hengstenberg asserts in 1 and 2 as peculiarities of 
prophecy cannot be admitted without material limitations. "With 

1 Christologie des Alten Testaments, vol. i. p. 294. et seqq., first edition. Compare 
also the article Prophecy by the same, in Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. 

2 Christologie, vol. i. p. 302. et seqq. 



Prophecy. 453 

regard to the first, we must not take the whole compass of the Old 
Testament prophecies as the measure or standard. Each prophet 
surveys the horizon as it was presented to him ; but the capabilities 
of some were greater than those of others, and therefore they 
received farther insight and took a wider view. In the descriptions 
of the individual writers, each is a whole, and agrees substantially 
with all other descriptions; it is only in the number of signs 
betokening the Messianic period which are adduced that there is a 
difference. The Holy Spirit was communicated to all ; but all did 
not see the same features. It is no proof of ecstatic condition that 
one prophet gave some traits of the Messianic time and another 
others ; while none gives a complete and connected picture of the 
time and reign of Him who was to come. This could scarcely have 
been expected; for the Spirit distributes to every man severally as he 
will. Every prophet communicates a part ; and that part possesses 
an entireness in itself. 

As to the succession of time having been lost to the prophets 
because of their peculiar internal state, we are unable to find the 
proof of such an assertion in their discourses. They take their posi- 
tion in the present, whence they sometimes glance at the past ; but 
they distinguish past, present, and future. The use of the preterite 
is not resolvable into the interpretation given by Hengstenberg, but 
belongs to Hebrew grammar. The prophetic preterite shows the 
certainty of what it is applied to. The glowing descriptions of the 
future are linked by them to definite occurrences in time. The only 
argument that bears more directly on the probability of the so called 
ecstatic state and the entire passivity of the human powers is that 
made up of certain expressions in the Old Testament. But even 
they are not valid proof. The Spirit fell upon them — the hand of 
Jehovah teas upon them, &c. External symptoms were connected 
with the impulse of the Spirit within ; but that is quite in character 
with the East. There internal feelings are manifested by external 
gestures much more conspicuously than in the West. Doubtless the 
degree in which the divine Spirit acted upon and in union with their 
minds depended much on their internal character and temperament. 
The more obtuse they were, the greater difficulty, so to speak, had 
the divine Spirit to encounter. The more cultivated the intellect, 
the fewer outward commotions would ensue. 

As to the figures and images being taken from the temporal 
relations and circumstances in which the prophets lived, that fact 
can scarcely be reconciled with the ecstatic theory. It harmonises 
with and favours the opposite view. In the ecstatic condition, we 
should have expected them to be lifted out of surrounding influences. 
But the fact that they were not so argues self-possession and 
calmness. 1 

Were it of any weight in a question of this nature, we might 
adduce the common judgment of the early church, found in Eusebius 
and other fathers. The sKaracns was a Montanist peculiarity. Indeed 
it was a form of fiavrsia among the Greeks. 

1 See Lutz, Biblische Hermeneutik, p 407. et seqq. 
G G 3 



454 Biblical Interpretation. 

On the whole, we are constrained to reject the hypothesis of 
Hengstenberg as unnecessary for the explanation of the phenomena 
of prophecy, as unsupported even by the passages of Scripture 
adduced in its favour, and inconsistent with the ordinary method of 
inspiration. If the usual mode of inspiration account for the charac- 
teristics of prophecy, there is no need for resorting to another. 1 The 
institutions for training prophets, the so called "schools" militate 
against the view of Hengstenberg. 

It must not be supposed that the prophetic gift was one which 
was permanent in individual prophets. The inspiration came upon 
them at times and then forsook them. It was not a part of their 
mental idiosyncrasy, of their internal constitution, which when once 
got was never withdrawn. And it should ever be borne in mind 
that the prophetic class were not characterised by the announcement 
of special predictions of definite future events, but by the declaration of 
the divine purposes. Their declarations consist of general, moral, and 
religious ideas, which find their confirmation and fulfilment in 
history, their ultimate and complete fulfilment in the person and 
kingdom of Messiah, where humanity appears in its highest state. 2 

Having considered the nature of prophecy, let us now advert to 
its interpretation. Here it is impossible to lay down general canons 
applicable to all cases. We cannot set forth universal rides by whose 
application every individual prophecy may be explained with uniform 
facility. The only safe and certain method is the examination of 
each particular case by itself. Yet we shall endeavour to put to- 
gether some general observations which may be of service to the 
reader. If they be more negative than positive, their application 
will at least serve to prevent rash and erroneous interpretations. 
They may not lead to such as are true and certain ; but if they 
prevent some expositors from going astray, they will not be useless. 
No rules indeed can be other than negative in relation to the subject 
before us. 

1. The first thing is to know the historical horizon. 

In every prophetic discourse it is incumbent on the interpreter, 
first of all, to ascertain the character of the time in which it origi- 
nated. The entire historical horizon should be surveyed. Both the 
author and the occasion should be known. If the former cannot be 
discovered, the era and period in which the prophet spoke or wrote 
must at least be investigated, with the occasion which gave rise to 
his prophecy. 

Sometimes inscriptions at the commencement point to the author. 
But even these cannot always be relied on. They may be merely 
traditional, proceeding from such as had to do with the collecting of 
the books. Or, they may relate to the collection in which a parti- 
cular prophecy is found. Hence it becomes necessary to examine 
whether inscriptions agree with what they purport to be — whether 
the writers assigned in them be really the authors of all such prophe- 
cies. In order to this, the contents of each individual prophecy, its 

1 Comp. Hofmann's Weissagung und Erfullung, part i. p. 27. 

s See Ruckert's die Propheten des Alten und Neuen Testaments, p. 310. etseqq. 



Prophecy. 455 

language, style, historical basis and allusions, should be recognised as 
coinciding with the authorship assigned. Here we have an important 
help in the historical books of the Old Testament, especially those 
of the Kings. 

Besides traditional inscriptions, the parallels belonging to a known 
and certain period should also be consulted, for the purpose of 
ascertaining the time in which a prophecy was delivered. But they 
must be independent of one another. It is sometimes the case that 
one prophet imitated another. There are pieces in which one closely 
followed some of his predecessors. These therefore, considered as 
parallels, are of no use for our present purpose. But there are other 
instances in which ideas and expressions bear a certain resemblance 
to one another, in distinct prophecies, where they were produced 
originally. In them both thoughts and diction resemble one another, 
not because there was copying on the part of one, but because the 
same spirit in the writers, operating upon minds belonging to one 
period of history and one nation, led to certain characteristic features 
of discourse marking that particular time and those who lived in it. 

In connection with this point is the determination of the extent 
of a prophetic piece. This is a problem which presents great diffi- 
culty. To know where one prophetic paragraph or piece terminates 
and another commences, requires much patient examination. What 
are the proper boundaries between one discourse and another can 
only be seen by the most minute inquiry ; for these boundaries are 
often indistinct. Sometimes indeed they cannot be discerned ; and 
therefore a number of chapters appear in close consecution, the off- 
spring apparently of one gush of the prophetic inspiration, dark and 
shadowy in outline. Sometimes smaller pieces appear after large 
ones, but annexed to the latter as though they belonged to them. 
This is exemplified in Isaiah. At other times a small piece precedes 
a longer one. But Isaiah also exemplifies the indistinctness which 
renders it all but impossible for the interpreter to settle the exact 
compass of prophetic discourses. Yet it is highly incumbent upon 
him to do his utmost to discover the extent as well as the type 
of each. 1 

After the author and time have been ascertained, the expositor 
proceeds to examine the historical books, and all descriptions of the 
period which he can find, that he may arrive at a knowledge of its 
characteristic features and influences. 2 

This investigation is preliminary. It prepares the interpreter 
for his task, smoothes the way in a measure, and fixes what he has 
to do. So far he is merely adjusting his work. It remains to be 
performed. 

2. In the actual exegesis of prophetic discourse an interpreter 
must first look for the type it hears or the course it runs. There is 
usually a certain conformation belonging to it. It is cast in a sort 
of general mould. This at least holds good in the case of a great 
majority of the prophecies. The knowledge of such a type will aid 

1 Compare Alexander's Introduction to his Commentary on Isaiah. 

2 SeeLutz, §75. p. 416. 

G G 4 



456 Biblical Interpretation. 

in determining the extent of a particular piece. But it does more. 
It assists in the interpretation of it. The prophet commonly sets 
out from the present in a reprehending tone, showing how it fails 
to realise the idea embodied in a covenant-people, admonishes them 
to return to Jehovah, threatening punishment in case of their re- 
fusal ; whence he passes into the future with a glowing ideal picture, 
thus encouraging them to repent, and consoling the upright few who 
remain faithful to the truth. Such is the customary shape which a 
prophetic paragraph assumes. 

Yet there are exceptions, whether arbitrary or not we need not 
inquire. The entire course just mentioned is not traversed by all 
the prophecies. The last part may be omitted, and then a prophecy 
consists of little more than announcements of punishment, threat- 
ening of misery and ruin. No glorious futurity is opened up in the 
distant future to cheer the hearts cast down by the fear of impending 
calamity. Most of the prophecies of Amos are of this description. 
Singly they are minatory and mournful ; but after they were all 
combined, the seer appended the bright vision of futurity at their 
close. Sometimes the Messianic future is at the beginning instead 
of the close. In Isa. ii., iii., iv., the delineation of future prosperity 
stands both at the beginning and the close. Another type is ex- 
emplified in Jer. xiv., xv., where the discourse is conducted in the 
way of a dialogue between God and the prophet. 1 

3. Acquaintance with the prophetic doctrine, that is, with the 
substance of what the prophets usually taught, is necessary to an 
interpreter. This doctrine is derived from their combined dis- 
courses. When all are put together in one connected outline, the 
reader gets a general view of the whole. This prophetic doctrine 
may be summed up in a few words. The basis of it is the idea of 
Israel being a people peculiarly chosen of God to be His, and as 
such, destined for a glorious state of exaltation. The people are 
spoken of as they really are at the time, exhibiting their departure 
from the true character of a covenant people ; but yet God is true. 
They are reminded that God is the holy one ; misery as the con- 
sequence of apostasy from him is predicted; exile is foretold. But 
inasmuch as God is faithful, they shall be brought back ; the divine 
Spirit will be imparted to them. Then arises a physical and moral 
condition which is the ideal of human life. This state is always 
preceded by the forgiveness of sins. God blots out the iniquity of 
his people, and imparts his Spirit. All is represented as bestowed 
by Jehovah upon an undeserving race. It will be necessary for the 
interpreter to observe closely the transitions from the present to the 
past, because they are usually rapid. Sometimes they are exceed- 
ingly bold and sudden, apt to surprise the unwary reader, as in 
Micah iv. Yet these transitions are an essential feature in pro- 
phecies which approach completeness or fulness. The prophet's 
mission was not wholly one of threatening import. He was sent 
to comfort and encourage, as well as to warn and punish. The 
righteous few of the nation were not to be overlooked. Hence, 
1 Compare Lutz, p. 417. 



Prophecy. 457 

instead of dwelling on the gloomy present and its immediate con- 
sequence, the seer's vision looks into the future, where better things 
appear. The distant horizon has a splendour to which the humble 
are directed as the end of their hopes. 

4. An interpreter should adhere to the one circle of historical 
reference as firmly as possible, unless something require its aban- 
donment. The range of the prophetic discourse is historical, espe- 
cially at its commencement. The stand-point of the writer is in 
his own time. He sets out with a definite allusion to Israel, or 
those connected with Israel's history. The prophetic doctrine has 
a historical basis and centre. When there are distinct marks of 
special predictions, or peculiar modifications of the prophetic idea, 
these phenomena must be fairly noticed and explained. It will not 
do to resolve what is a specific prediction into the general prophetic 
doctrine, as the Rationalists do, so that peculiar announcements of 
definite future events are explained away. The normal type must 
not be held so narrowly and firmly as to ignore departures from it. 
It is general and dark enough of itself, without adding specific pre- 
dictions to be swallowed up in it, and so increasing the vagueness 
instead of forming an important exception to it. 

5. The Apostle Peter affirms of the Old Testament prophets (of 
the true Hebrew prophets, and not merely of Daniel, as De Wette 
asserts) that the Spirit of Christ or of God, which was in them, 
testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that 
should follow. But he does not say that they were ignorant of the 
meaning of their own predictions. All that is plainly and positively 
involved in his language is that they were ignorant of the time of 
fulfilment. They did not know the period when their predictions 
would be verified. Accordingly they searched what era or what 
kind of era (sis riva r) ttoiov /caipov) the Spirit which was in them 
pointed to. All that they could learn, however, from such inquiry 
was very general. They were informed that the Messianic blessings 
were not to come in their own day. " Unto whom it was revealed 
that not unto themselves, but unto us, they did minister the tilings 
which are now reported," &c. (1 Peter i. 10 — 12.) The view taken 
of Peter's words by Arnold seems to us unsupported. " When 
it is said that they searched for these things (what and what manner 
of time), it is implied of course that they did not know them at 
first ; but whether by searching they were in any case enabled to dis- 
cover them, this the words of St. Peter do not indeed affirm, but yet 
neither do they deny it." 1 Surely the apostle's language implies 
that the searching was fruitless, since it is added, " Unto whom 
it was revealed that not unto themselves, but unto us, they did 
minister the things which are now reported," &c. We understand 
Peter to say, not that they had previous knowledge on one point 
and searched for it on another, but that in consequence of their 
searching about the time of the fulfilment of their prophecies, this 
indefinite knowledge was given to them, viz. that they were minis- 
tering things not to be accomplished in their own period. 

1 Notes to Sermons on the Interpretation of Prophecy, p. 430. 



458 Biblical Interpretation. 

6. In certain prophetic pieces or discourses there is a double 
sense, or twofold reference, a lower and a higher, a nearer and a 
more remote. The former relates to the present and immediate ; 
while the latter usually refers to the Messianic period and spiritual 
deliverance. This point is closely connected with that of Messianic 
and specific predictions. It is one which has been largely contested. 
It is undeniable that many of the fathers maintained the so-called 
dovble sense, particularly Theodore of Mopsuestia ; and there is 
little doubt that many have rejected it on account of the unfortunate 
appellation. Twofold reference would be much more appropriate ; 
but the name is of little consequence. In modern times the thing 
so designated is commonly rejected as untenable. Much contempt 
even has been poured upon it by superficial writers. 

A good deal of a priori reasoning has been indulged in regarding 
it. Thus a recent writer asks, " How could such portions form 
part of a revelation when, after we have ascertained their meaning, 
we are still left as ignorant as ever of their import, since under 
these words another deeper meaning still lies hidden? Besides, 
how, and upon what principle, can we ever be sure that we have 
arrived at the true secondary meaning, or that we have perfectly 
exhausted the burden of these passages, and that our work as com- 
mentators is accomplished? There may be a third, fourth, fifth, 
or — as the Rabbis maintain — seventy meanings lurking still deeper 
under these very words. 

" In fact there is no end to the objections which may be urged, 
a, priori, against this method of interpretation." 1 

The point cannot be elucidated by a priori reasoning, on whatever 
side it is looked at. Neither the single nor the double sense theory 
should be argued thus. Hence we reject all such attempts at a priori 
argument on the side of the latter as well as the former ; as when 
Arnold tries to show that a " double sense appears to be a necessary 
condition of the very idea of prophecy ; . . . . that every prophecy 
has, acording to the very definition of the word, a double source ; it 
has, if I may venture so to speak, two authors, the one human, the 
other divine. For as, on the one hand, the word implies that it is 
uttered by the tongue of man, so it implies, on the other hand, that its 
author and origin is God." 2 This language applies to all inspired 
compositions, and would therefore consistently infer the double sense 
of all Scripture. 

The true method, and the only philosophical one, is to consider 
the actual phenomena of prophecy as they lie before us in the Scrip- 
tures, and see whether the one-sense theory meets all the exigencies 
of each and every prophecy. 

And here at the outset we totally deny that "the theory of 
double sense rests solely upon the construction put upon the for- 
mula in which the New Testament writers introduce their quota- 
tions from the Old, as ex. gr. Matth. i. 22., tovto 8s okov ysyovsv, 
Xva 7r\r)pa>8f} to prjdsv virb tov /cvpi'ov Sea. tov irpofyrjTov : ' all this 

1 Wolfe, The Messiah as predicted in the Pentateuch and Psalms, p. lxxiv 

2 Sermons, vol. i. p. 427 



Prophecy. 459 

was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord 
by the prophet:' and other abbreviated forms, Xva irXrjpcoOfi, and 
so on." l The basis lies far deeper and broader than this. It is 
founded in part on the typical character of Old Testament institu- 
tions, on symbolical transactions and teachings. It is derived from 
the language of many individual passages, which is both simply his- 
torical and exaggerated. It is inherent in the nature of a theocracy 
like the Jewish one, which was elementary, symbolical, typical, pre- 
paratory to a better and spiritual economy. 

We freely allow that a double sense should not be admitted when 
another explanation is more probable. No doubt it has been assumed 
in some cases too hastily. There have been abuse and exag- 
geration in its application ; but it is not the less true on that ac- 
count. There are cases which cannot be fairly interpreted with- 
out it. 

Let us reflect upon the fact that the language of prophecy gene- 
rally is vague and obscure. The ideas of the seers, — their visions 
and dreams, — were tinged with darkness. They had not, at least 
in many instances, a clear perception of all the meaning of what 
they were prompted to utter. The Holy Spirit, who spake only 
in and through their minds, led them to use language of general 
import, often misty because symbolical. It is of no moment to the 
interpreter whether they were conscious of the entire significance 
of what they spoke and wrote ; probably they were not. All that 
he has to do with is the thing itself now on record. 

So far from some predictions being incapable of more than a 
single reference, we hold that they are fairly susceptible of va- 
rious such, and were meant to be so taken. " All predictions, or 
prophecies in the restricted sense, are not specific and exclusive, 
i. e. limited to one occasion or emergency ; but many are descriptive 
of a sequence of events which has been often realised. Thus, in 
some parts of Isaiah, there are prophetic pictures of the sieges of 
Jerusalem which cannot be exclusively applied to any one event of 
that kind, but the terms and images of which are borrowed partly 
from one and partly from another through a course of ages. Thus 
the threatening against Babylon contained in the thirteenth and 
fourteenth chapters of Isaiah, if explained as a specific and exclu- 
sive prophecy of the Medo-Persian conquest, seems to represent 
the downfall of the city as more sudden and complete than it ap- 
pears in history It is a panorama of the fall of Babylon, not 

in its first inception merely, but through all its stages till its con- 
summation." 2 If this reasoning be correct, as we believe it to be, 
surely the same prophecy refers to more events than one. It de- 
picts different and distinct occurrences separated by intervals of 
time from one another. Each is a certain grade and stage of fulfil- 
ment. It is not fulfilled at once, but reaches its fulfilment through 
successive stages. If referred to one occurrence, or a series of 
occurrences taking place together, the prophecy certainly applies 

1 Wolfe, p. Ixxvi. 

2 Alexander's Introduction to Commentary on Isaiah, p. 37. Glasgow reprint 



460 Biblical Interpretation. 

to them. It has its meaning in them. But it has not its full sense 
or entire fulfilment till it be applied to other occurrences. The 
sense of it is springing or germinant ; continuing to widen till it 
embrace various references — allusions and applications to various 
events. It appears to us that the opponents of what they persist 
in calling a double sense, in conceding the truth of a gradual fulfil- 
ment like this, virtually surrender the point in debate. Yet they 
do not profess to see the connection between holding the double 
sense and Lord Bacon's grades and stages of fulfilment. Let us 
therefore proceed to view some Messianic prophecies in this relation. 

It has been supposed that the second and forty -fifth Psalms afford 
the most plausible appearance of bearing a twofold reference. So 
Lutz believes. But we do not so regard them. The former at 
least is better considered as a direct and exclusively Messianic Psalm, 
whose figurative language is borrowed from historical circumstances 
to depict the spiritual King of Israel solely. Probably therefore it 
has no historical reference to any other sovereign. But the six- 
teenth Psalm stands on different ground; and those who hold its 
exclusively Messianic character are perplexed by various parts of it. 
Indeed the natural and primary sense is, that it describes a pious 
sufferer in peril of death, either David himself or some other, in 
the first instance. Nor are we aware of any good expositor of the 
Psalms who takes it otherwise. Calvin, De Wette, Ewald, Heng- 
stenberg, Alexander, Olshausen, Hupfeld, all understand it thus. 
In the fourth verse the speaker expresses his abhorrence of all other 
gods. How can such language be restricted to Christ as properly 
and solely applicable to him? Was he tempted to idolatry once 
and again ? And with what propriety can Christ say to the Father, 
" Thou wilt teach me the way of life," except in and through every 
one of his godly followers ; except in the same manner as he said 
to Saul, " Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ? " But while the 
Psalm naturally depicts a pious sufferer, — while this is doubtless 
its primary sense, — it also refers to Christ, the most illustrious 
representative of the entire class as well as their Head. This is 
fully proved by the quotations of Peter and Paul in the Acts of 
the Apostles. The Psalm passes through one stage of fulfilment 
in every pious sufferer : but its complete fulfilment is in Christ. It 
has therefore more than a single reference. 

The same reasoning is applicable to the twenty-second Psalm. It 
has a similar reference to a righteous sufferer, whose feelings and 
deliverance it depicts ; and is fulfilled in its highest sense in Christ, 
the head of the class of pious sufferers. Those who apply to the 
Messiah exclusively, as the speaker, the following language, do vio- 
lence to the feelings of every right-minded reader. " But thou art 
he that took me out of the womb ; thou didst make me hope when I 
was upon my mother's breasts. I was cast upon thee from the 
womb ; thou art my God from my mother's belly. . . . But I am 
a worm and no man." (verses 9, 10. 6.) 

We may also point to Isaiah xl — lxvi. as an example. We cannot 
doubt that this portion refers primarily to a historical object, the 



Prophecy. 461 

exile, and deliverance of Israel from Babylon. But along with the 
description of such deliverance, there is a deeper and higher refer- 
ence, viz., to the time of Messiah, in which comes spiritual deliver- 
ance. The two are spoken of together and blended in the de- 
scription given. The prophecy was fulfilled in the last ; it had an 
incipient fulfilment, if we may be allowed the phrase, in the first. It 
matters not whether the prophet himself distinctly intended to speak 
of both ; it is highly probable he had no very clear perception of the 
mode in which his language should be verified in its highest sense. 
The descriptions are of a kind which forbid their exclusive applica- 
tion either to the New dispensation or to events in the Old. Both 
must be combined in order to bring out the-true interpretation. They 
relate both to historical events under the Old, and spiritual ones 
under the New, economy. Nor are the references to the historical 
and the spiritual kept apart. The one merges into the other. In 
some parts the descriptions point to the two as successive, while in 
others they embrace both together. Here therefore we have a two- 
fold reference or double sense. 

Were it necessary to refer to more examples, we should adduce 
Isaiah vii. 14 — 16. which appears to us beset with insuperable diffi- 
culties on any other hypothesis than that of two children being- 
referred to. We are aware of the inherent perplexity of the passage 
on any interpretation ; but that which confines it exclusively to the 
Messiah is exposed to special objections. This is shown by the 
absurd answer given by one who refers the passage directly to Christ, 
to the question, ""What connection could exist between the birth and 
growth of Jesus, and the deliverance of Judea from those who were 
then harassing it ? " viz. that the prophet saw the child born, not as 
what should occur ages afterwards, but as an event actually realised 
at the moment he spoke. The scene of the birth passed in vision 
before his mental eye. The birth was a real event to him. This 
became a sign of the deliverance of the Jews from their present 
danger, because it rendered it certain that such a deliverance must 
take place ! As if what is here represented as seen by the inward 
vision of the prophet — a thing of his own mind — could be any 
sign to the Jews then, that they should be speedily delivered from 
their enemies. Nothing but an external sign could satisfy those 
Jews, in reference to whom the prophet said " Who hath believed 
our report ? " that they should be speedily rescued from impending 
danger. Inward visions, whatever they related to, were no pledges 
to them. 

We might also point to Gen. iii. 15., in the words of which promise 
there is a twofold reference, a literal and a spiritual ; the one belonging 
to the literal serpent and mankind ; the other to the devil and the 
spiritual seed of the woman, especially their illustrious Head and 
Representative. 

A common objection to the mode of interpretation which we now 
advocate is, that it is arbitrary to apply one part to a historical person 
or place, and another part of the same prophecy spiritually ; to inter- 
pret one verse historically, and another spiritually ; for example, to 



462 Biblical Interpretation. 

say that David is spoken of in one verse, and Christ in another. 
Those who do not interpret the same prophecy throughout, in one 
consistent method, are justly liable to this objection. The two 
methods, the historical and the spiritual, should be adopted together, 
and applied throughout the same prophecy. Or, those who prefer 
the historical alone, or the spiritual alone, should adhere to either 
respectively. It is wrong to run from one to another in the same 
prophecy. The objection does not lie against the legitimate use of 
the twofold reference-scheme, but against its abuse. 

The question now arises, whether one and the same rule of inter- 
pretation be applicable to all the prophecies, viz. whether all are to be 
understood both literally and spiritually. Should they be explained 
on the one principle of a twofold reference ? The affirmative answer 
is given by Arnold. " All may and ought to be understood both 
literally and spiritually." 1 

"We cannot adopt this view. Some are literal, others spiritual. 
Some are both literal and spiritual at the same time ; but all do not 
possess any one of these distinctive characters. We believe that 
some are historical and literal alone. In this manner we explain 
those belonging to Babylon. It is true that the language is hyper- 
bolical and exaggerated in various respects, as thus applied. But it 
is the language of poetry, and as such partakes of the elevation of 
poetry. Besides, it arises in part from the state of the prophets' 
minds, which were by no means distinctly enlightened as to the nature of 
the predictions they uttered. They were not conscious of a precise 
sense attaching to their utterances in many cases. Hence their lan- 
guage was vague, general, dim, even when they referred to a parti- 
cular place or country. While necessarily objective in part, it 
partook of much subjective groping. Other prophecies again are 
Messianic and spiritual alone. The 2d and 110th Psalms exemplify 
this. Both refer throughout and exclusively to him. Others, as we 
have seen, are both historical and spiritual, such as Isa. xxxiv. 5 — 17., 
where the destruction of Edom, as the enemy of ancient Israel, and 
the general destruction of the church's enemies are both included. 
Even in the New Testament this is the case ; for we hold, that the 
24th chapter of Matthew's Gospel refers both to the impending de- 
struction of Jerusalem by the Romans and to the final judgment ; the 
former being a premonitory emblem or anticipative representation of 
the latter. In like manner, the greater part of the Apocalypse has 
more references than one. It is both historical and spiritual, not 
however, exactly like to the prophecies of the Old Testament of 
which we have spoken. The language is so general as to apply to 
various historical events and periods. It was meant to do so. When- 
ever general agencies appear in operation — and it is of these and not 
individual events that the seer speaks — wherever general causes and 
influences exist, there the prophecies of the Apocalypse apply. They 
comprehend various events and periods, because they speak of 
general influences or agencies which produce similar effects. 

1 Sermons, vol. i. p. 406. 



Prophecy. 463 

But it will be asked, how is it known when a prophecy is wholly 
historical or literal; when it is wholly spiritual; and when it is both 
at the same time ? The first two are more easily discerned than the 
last. The character and language of the prophecy itself indicates 
with tolerable clearness whether it be literal, or whether it be spi- 
ritual. But if it is demanded of us to assign a canon or rule by 
which we may discover a prophecy that is both literal and spiritual 
at once, our answer is that we cannot. No universal criterion can 
be proposed. Each prophecy must be taken and judged by itself. 
An examination of its characteristic phenomena, aided at times by 
the New Testament, is all the interpreter has to rely upon. 

It may be thought by some that there is a kind of criterion which 
we may use with effect, viz. that when the language of a prophecy 
is hyperbolical and exaggerated as applied to historical events prior 
to the advent of Christ — when the words " are imbued with a 
spirit so mighty that the earthly frame is too weak to bear it" x — 
they must also have a spiritual sense answering adequately and 
fully to their magnificence. Where the historical fulfilment in 
countries, cities, nations, or individuals, does not come up to the 
height of the description, some higher and worthier subject must be 
assumed, whose nature fulfils all the conditions of the lofty terms 
employed. This observation is plausible, and would appear at first 
sight to assist the interpreter not a little. By means of it, Arnold is 
led to regard the whole strain of Old Testament prophecy as par- 
taking of a twofold character, and waiting for a twofold fulfilment. 
The entire scheme of interpretation he takes to be of a twofold 
nature, having a historical or literal sense and a spiritual one, 
because of the high strains which prophecy employs — strains too 
elevated to be entirely adapted to and realised by the foreground of 
the prophetic vision, or the things to which the prophets primarily 
refer and from which they set out as their starting-point. But we 
greatly doubt the correctness of the position. The hyperbolical 
character of the language is not, in our view, owing to its being the 
intended vehicle of a high and spiritual meaning. And it is equally 
incorrect in our opinion to assume with Arnold, that the prophets 
were themselves conscious of a twofold character belonging to their 
prophecies, understanding the one sense of them but not the other — 
the one being entertained by the human mind of the writer, the other 
being the sense infused into it by God, as that writer supposes. The 
distinction thus made in the mind of the writer appears to us unwar- 
ranted and improbable. Both were alike in and through the minds 
of the prophets as far as we can judge. Neither sense was " in- 
fused" more than the other ; nor indeed was either "infused" at all. 
Their minds were acted upon by an influence which mingled itself 
with an4 became a part of the ideas themselves as they arose. The 
influence became a part of their idiosyncrasy in the majority of 
cases. 

The difficulty of the interpreter will lie in one point, viz. in sepa- 

1 Arnold, vol. i. p. 434. 



464 Biblical Interpretation. 

rating between passages in which the language of a prophecy is mere 
theocratic imagery, nothing but Jewish drapery serving as an 
envelope to spiritual ideas and spiritual events connected with 
Messiah's kingdom, and passages which describe events connected 
with the old economy besides pointing to New Testament times 
for its adequate and proper fulfilment. We believe that there are 
both kinds of prophecies. Of the former we adduce these examples. 

The prevalence of harmony and love among the Jews themselves, 
when they shall be converted to God and delight in Messiah, is 
expressed by a termination of the schism which separated Judah 
and Israel ; the total extinction of the former jealousy existing 
between them. " The envy also of Ephraim shall depart, and the 
adversaries of Judah shall be cut off; Ephraim shall not envy 
Judah, and Judah shall not vex Ephraim." (Isa. xi. 13.) The 
representation made by Hosea is similar. " Then shall the children 
of Judah and the children of Israel be gathered together, and appoint 
themselves one head ; and they shall come up out of the land. : for 
great shall be the day of Jezreel." (Hosea i. 11.) 

In these and analogous instances, we must strip off the theocratic 
dress, to get at the real meaning of the prophecies. The envelope 
does not describe real facts or occurrences connected with the old 
economy. It serves as a mere veil, beyond which the enlightened 
Jew was bound to look in faith for the spirit embodied. The lan- 
guage does not set forth two things, one of which foreshadowed the 
other, and was an earnest of a more glorious consummation. It 
enwraps in Jewish drapery Christian ideas and events. Perhaps 
history will assist in distinguishing between this kind of prophecies, 
where a peculiar dress is employed to pourtray, while it partially 
conceals, features belonging to the Christian age, and the other kind, 
where two events, the one typical of the other, are blended together 
in description. 

We have no fear that the advocates of a single sense in all the 
prophecies will ever succeed in dislodging the twofold reference, as 
long as the genius of the Old Testament is distinctly apprehended. 
While types and symbols are recognised in it, typical and secondary 
senses must be admitted. This was clearly shown long ago by Bishop 
Warburton, in his " Divine Legation of Moses." The Jewish 
economy was expressly designed to prepare for and foreshadow the 
Christian. The Hebrews were instructed by outward and visible 
objects. Spiritual scenes were conveyed to their minds through the 
medium of permanent externals. Through the heads of their nation 
and important events in their history, they were taught to look for- 
ward to a golden age. The believing Israelite was directed to a 
period when his hopes should be fulfilled. Was a temporal deliverer 
mentioned, who should confer signal blessings on the nation? he was 
described in language which could only find its full import in a great 
deliverer thereafter. Was a signal judgment about to fall on a parti- 
cular people ? the language swelled beyond it to the judgment of the 
great day, of which it was a faint adumbration. The diction and 
imagery reached beyond the type to the antitype. 



Prophecy. 465 

In explaining such passages, it is obvious that one realisation of 
their meaning does not answer all the conditions arising out of their 
form. One occurrence is merely an incipient development of another. 
The visible and temporal is connected with the spiritual and distant 
future, pointing the waiting desires of the pious Hebrew to a glorious 
consummation. " The nearer subject in each instance," says an able 
writer, " supplies the prophetic ground and the prophetic images for 
the future Christian subject." 1 The former was an instalment of the 
fulfilment, not the fulfilment itself. It served as the envelope of 
the latter, while it also declared a literal truth or important fact in 
Jewish history, or the history of nations brought into contact with 
the chosen people. It was the objective form enshrouding and veiling 
the divine spirit. When therefore the outward framework is laid 
aside by the occurrence of the prior event or person, the higher mean- 
ing it contained remained to fill up the measure of the lofty description. 

Agreeably to this representation it has been observed by the 
author already cited, " there is both reason and sublimity in pro- 
phecy ; and we shall scarcely understand it, unless we are prepared 
to follow it in both. Its sublimity is, that it often soars, as here, far 
above the scene from which it takes its rise. Its reason is, that it 
still hovers over the scene of things from which it rose. It takes the 
visible or the temporal subject, as its point of departure (if I may 
borrow the phrase), for its enlarged revelation; and yet by that subject 
it governs its course. In this method of it, I believe that men of 
plain unsophisticated reason find it perfectly intelligible ; and that it 
is only the false fastidiousness of an artificial learning which puts 
the scruple into our perceptions either of its consistency or its sense. 
But when we consider that this structure of prophecy, founded on a 
proximate visible subject, had the advantage, both in the aptitude of 
the representation, and in the immediate pledge of the future truth; a 
sounder learning may dispose us to admit it, and that with confidence, 
whenever the prophetic text or mystic vision is impatient for the 
larger scope, and the conspicuous characters of the symbols and the 
fact concur in identifying the relation." 2 

If the opponents of double references or senses, and consequently 
of twofold accomplishments or verifications, wish to banish them 
effectually from the region of prophetic interpretation, they must 
expel types and symbols from the Bible. They must deny symbo- 
lical events. They must dissociate the writings of the prophets 
entirely from the typical ritual. The religious ritual being typical 
had a moral import. It was in fact a speaking action with a moral 
import. If there be no prophecy bearing a twofold aspect, then are 
the writings of the prophets entirely dissimilar in character to the 
public ritual of the ancient economy. The two parts of a dispensa- 
tion which was intended to convey some spiritual knowledge of a 
better one to come, are thus unlike. But if such prophecies as we 
are contending for be allowed, harmony is introduced between the 
two portions of the old economy. As the speaking action or typical 
rite has a moral import, so has the double prophecy in its secondary 

1 Davison, Discourses on Prophecy, p. 316. 4th ed. 2 Ibid. pp. 318, 319. 

VOL. II. H H 



466 Biblical Interpretation. 

sense. Each has its primary sense in the nature of the Jewish reli- 
gion ; and each too has its spiritual and full signijicancy in a religion 
which was the consummation and perfection of its predecessor. 1 

If any thing were needed to confirm the view now taken, we 
should refer to the weak and worthless arguments urged against 
what is called the double sense by Fairbairn. All that he can 
adduce in opposition is this : " First, because it so ravels and com- 
plicates the meaning of the prophecies to which it is applied as to 
involve us in painful doubt and uncertainty regarding their proper 
application. Secondly, should this be avoided, it can only arise from 
the prophecies being of so general and comprehensive a nature as to 
be incapable of a very close and specific fulfilment. And finally, 
when applied to particular examples, the theory practically gives way, 
a3 the terms employed in all the more important predictions are too 
definite and precise to admit of more than one proper fulfilment." 2 

In regard to these objections, those who have carefully studied the 
Old Testament prophecies know that the majority of them are 
general, comprehensive, indefinite. The writer himself allows that 
such prophecies have more fulfilments than one. He errs in sup- 
posing them to be few and exceptional. By far the greater number 
are of the very class in question, where he concedes a double sense. 
Failing to perceive this, he speaks against the theory of the double 
sense as the rule. All that he says about the sixteenth Psalm is of 
no avail against its twofold application ; especially as he carefully 
avoids allusion to the part of it that militates most against himself. 
And the prophecy in Isa. vii. 14 — 16. is not to be elucidated by such 
perfunctory remarks as those advanced. It is too difficult and large 
to be confined to the narrow bed into which our author crushes it 
with self-complacent and summary procedure, saying, " thus under- 
stood (i. e. in the exclusively Messianic sense), the whole is entirely 
natural and consistent ; and the single sense of the prophecy proves 
to be identical, as well with the native force of the words, as with 
the interpretations of inspired men." 3 

Fairbairn falls into a palpable inconsistency in arguing against 
double senses in prophecy, for he expressly affirms that types are 
capable of more than one application to the realities of the gospel. 
In justice to him, it should be stated indeed, that he holds a type to 
express but one meaning, distinguishing that from its admitting more 
than one application. Granting, however, the distinction (which we 
do not, for it is one without a difference), what do the advocates of a 
double sense mean more than that prophecies may and do admit of 
more than one application? This is the very thing they maintain. 
Hence the writer is guilty of inconsistency. He admits of a two- 
fold application, as he calls it, of a type ; yet he refuses to concede 
the double application of a prophecy. But both must go together. 
Types and prophecies are too nearly allied to be so separated. They 
are substantially identical, and must, with some exceptions, be ex- 
plained on the same principle. 

1 See Warbui-ton's Divine Legation of Moses, book vi. section 6. 

2 Typology, 2d ed. vol. i. p. 133. 3 See page 136. 



Prophecy. 467 

With the New Testament for our guide, we cannot doubt that 
there are symbolical or typical prophecies. Such as confine the view 
to the event which forms the foreground of the vision, as most 
Rationalists do, lose sight of the higher spirit, giving that event its 
chief value. They neglect the intimate relation of two things to one 
another; although their interwoven description should have led to the 
perception of it. The language is of such a character as to show 
points of prefigurative resemblance. Equally mistaken are those 
who narrow the field of vision in the opposite way. They lose sight 
of the symbol, restricting passages belonging to the new dispensation 
to that exclusively, although their Jewish reality and form forbid it. l 

7. In the prophets there are certain fundamental ideas which ought 
to be specially regarded by the interpreter. These enter into and 
modify the form of their discourses, showing the deep religious 
feeling which pervades them all. The relations amid which this class 
of inspired teachers lived and spake must not be looked at from a 
mere outward stand-point, but in their subjective aspect. The 
historical, natural, and temporal is not the true basis and burden of 
their representations. The great conceptions they bodied forth are 
truly and properly religious ones, having indeed the symbolical dress 
of the Old Testament, but the spirit of religion generally. Israel is 
not merely the literal Israel. Zion is frequently the spiritual Zion 
or church of God. Moab is not so much the Moab that showed 
itself the obstinate enemy of the chosen people, as the enemies of 
true believers wherever and whenever they exist. The prophecies 
set forth a pure standard of divine worship and service, which lies at 
the basis of them all. Hence the so called historical interpretation 
fails in its shallowness to recognise the great central ideas which 
give all its value to prophecy. Occupied as it is with the historical 
and temporal import, it never arrives at the religious sphere within 
which the prophets' thoughts moved, and out of which they ori- 
ginated. 

That there are such central truths constituting the essential parts 
of prophecy will not be disputed. Thus idolatry in its nature, 
origin, and consequences, is set forth as the object of the divine dis- 
pleasure. Idolatry is the type of all sin. The union of humanity 
with the divine is the true normal relation ; and all deviation from 
that — the least severance of such spiritual communion — is idolatry or 
sin. When man loses his trust in God and places it in the creature, 
he becomes an idolater. How strongly do the prophets set forth the 
fearful consequences of idolatry ! 

Again, the marriage relation is employed as an emblem to set 
forth the covenant relation existing between God and Israel and the 
apostasy of the people or Old Testament church from the divine 
Husband and Head. 

In like manner the wrath of God is forcibly represented against 
man's ingratitude and rebellion. Kindred to this is the day of the 
Lord, in which expression is included not merely a time of misfortune 

1 See my Sacred Hermeneutics, p. 51. et seqq. 

H H 2 



468 Biblical Interpretation. 

or adversity, but the subjection of the whole world to Himself by 
the omnipotent holiness of Jehovah. 

So too the deliverance of Israel has the extended and deep mean- 
ing of the redemption of humanity. 

The future glory of the people of God embraces an idea which 
stretches throughout the Messianic dispensation, realising itself more 
and more till it be consummated in another state. 

In like manner, Zion, the centre of the theocracy, is not a mere 
temporal thing — not the Zion of the Jewish religion simply, but the 
redeemed church of God, whom he himself selected and chose as his 
peculiar people to vivify with his Spirit and dwell in. 1 

8. The language of prophecy is highly figurative and symbolical. 
Hence it is necessary for the interpreter to be well acquainted with 
figures and symbols. For this purpose, several useful works have 
been compiled, such as "Wemyss's Key to the Symbolical Language 
of Scripture ; and a Concise Dictionary of the same in the fourth 
volume of this work. The anthropomorphisms and anthropathisms 
should be carefully observed, in order to separate the pure idea of 
God from all such sensuous representations. 

9. As prophecies are commonly written in poetry, they partake of 
the characteristics of Hebrew poetry. Thus one line often corre- 
sponds with another as, 

Who hath believed our report ? 
and To whom is the arm of the Lord revealed ? (Isa. liii. 1.) 

where the same idea is expressed in both parallel members. Hence 
also we meet with the boldest figures, the peculiar imagery, the 
digressions and episodes belonging to poetical compositions, and 
especially oriental ones. 2 The only exception to this is the prophe- 
cies scattered through the Gospels and Epistles, which are usually in 
prosaic diction. 3 Through neglect of this simple observation, a 
class of interpreters would resolve a great part of the imagery of the 
Apocalypse into historical and significant circumstances, failing to 
perceive that poetical drapery or costume was not meant to be con- 
verted into plain prose. 

10. Universal terms should not be pressed, since they belong to 
the elevated diction of poetry. Thus when we read of all knowing 
the Lord from the least to the greatest (Jer. xxxi. 34.) ; of all 
flesh seeing the glory of the Lord together (Isa. xl. 5.); of the 
earth being full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover 
the sea (Isa. xi. 9.); of the wolf dwelling with the lamb, and the 
leopard lying down with the kid, &c. in connection with men not 
hurting or destroying in all God's holy mountain (Isa. xi. 6 — 9.); we 
must not suppose that a period is predicted when every individual shall 
possess a saving knowledge of the true God. These highly figurative 
phrases, and others similar to them which might be quoted, denote the 

1 Lutz, Biblische Hermeneutik, p. 422. et seqq. 

2 Smith on the Principles of Interpretation, p. 57. 

3 See Bishop Terrot's Appendix to his translation of Ernesti, vol. i. p. 216. 



Prophecy. 469 

extensive diffusion of the gospel. The truth will be spread among 
all nations and peoples. As far as we can see, there never will be a 
time when every individual shall know the Lord as his God ; nor do 
these phrases assert it. 

11. The interpretation of prophecy given by the Lord Jesus and 
his inspired apostles is a rule or key by means of which we may cor- 
rectly interpret such as are cited or referred to by them. This rule 
has been extended by Fraser when he says, that every such passage 
is a key " to open up the whole section of the prophecy connected 
with it;" 1 and still more by D. Davidson 2 , who extends it to every 
parallel prophecy, so that he holds " the New Testament interpre- 
tation of prophecy to be the only sure and certain criterion by which 
the meaning of all divine predictions may be discovered." But the 
one sure guide to all divine predictions is not of the character here 
claimed for it. The New Testament interpretations of prophecy are 
valid for the passages quoted, and for none other. The criterion 
stretched any further loses its certainty. And the rule, even as we 
have propounded it now, must be cautiously applied. It must be 
taken with a qualification. Sometimes nothing more is meant by the 
introductory phrase it was fulfilled than that there existed a divinely 
arranged analogy between the fact spoken of by the prophet and that 
narrated by the New Testament writer, so that both may be expressed 
by the same terms. This however holds good only when a pro- 
phetic passage contains a general fact or sentiment under which a 
particular fact or sentiment in the New may be grouped because of 
similitude. It does not apply when the Old Testament contains a 
specific prediction ; for we have then a satisfactory guide to the sense 
of the prophecy, at least to its higher and adequate fulfilment. 

12. It does not follow that because the greater part of a prophecy 
bears a literal sense every part of it is literal. In its general cha- 
racter it may be literal, while a description of the object or objects 
embraced by it requires here and there figurative expressions and a 
spiritual sense. On the contrary, when a prophecy has a spiritual 
sense, some smaller portions may demand a literal one. All depends 
on the nature of the thing or things described by the writer. 

13. Much care should be taken in the investigation of such pro- 
phecies as are predictions, i. e. those relating to future events. They 
should if possible be separated and examined as a class. But great 
difficulties are interwoven with them, because they may relate to 
present and future at the same time; or to the nearer and more 
remote future at once. Interpreters have often failed in argument 
with their opponents from not discerning or acknowledging the two- 
fold reference of various prophecies by means of which they may 
now be partially fulfilled, but not completely so. If they contend 
that they are now fulfilled, and do not therefore belong to the 
future, or that they are unfulfilled, and therefore wait their accom- 
plishment, they assert what is both false and true. Maintaining one 
sense exclusively, various expositors have fallen into error. Thus 

1 See his Key to the Prophecies. 

2 See his Book, The Test of Prophecy. 

H H 3 



470 Biblical Interpretation. 

some assert that Isaiah, chapter li., has been fulfilled in the Baby- 
lonish captivity. But this is merely a part of its import. It is still 
not adequately or fully accomplished. Belonging as it does princi- 
pally, though not exclusively, to the gospel dispensation, it is now 
in progress of fulfilment. Its partial, incipient application was to 
the deliverance of the Jews from Babylon.- Hence it refers at pre- 
sent both to the past and the future. 

14. Apart from prophecies having a double reference, or such as 
pass through various stages of fulfilment, it is not easy to separate 
those that have been fulfilled already from the unfulfilled. The 
entire Apocalypse is thought by some to refer to times still future ; 
while others regard most of it as already accomplished. We know 
of no other method of ascertaining what are really predictions still 
future, and what have been already accomplished, than that of study- 
ing each by itself in all its phenomena, and judging accordingly. 

15. The interpreter should ascertain whether a prophecy be chro- 
nological or not. "We believe that few are chronological. Most are 
of the contrary character. It is not of the essence of prophecy to 
speak of times, except in very general terms. It does not usually 
specify dates and periods. 

16. If a prophecy be truly chronological, no link of it can be ac- 
complished in more than a single event. 1 

17. It is manifest that prophecies were given not to gratify 
curiosity by enabling men to foreknow events. Such foreknowledge 
would have been inconsistent with the moral government of the 
world. Hence an interpretation affixed to a prediction by persons 
contemporary with the prophet or living soon after, can render no 
aid to us. Hence also we need not attempt a particular and distinct 
explanation of those which remain to be fulfilled. This were to 
derive from them an ability to predict future events, which no man 
can acquire. 

18. Some prophecies are to be interpreted fully only by their 
events. This applies, however, merely to specific predictions, such 
for example as belong to persons ; to the Messiah, his birth, life, and 
death. But prophecies of this nature are comparatively few. Most 
relate to events, influences, agencies. These are general, vague, 
indistinct. When therefore they are fulfilled, the events do not at 
once identify themselves with the anticipated declaration of them. 
Many things may make it difficult to mark the sense of prophecies 
in the events fulfilling them. We need only refer to the seals and 
trumpets of the Apocalypse. Surely interpreters who suppose that 
most if not all of them are past, have found very great perplexity in 
ascertaining the historical events fulfilling them. The symbols are 
obscure. The descriptions are in the hyperbolical language and 
vivid imagery of poetry. There is an absence of all chronological 
notation. Dates are not given ; or if they be, the numbers stand for 
indefinite or round ones. Hence all is uncertain. 

1 9. In the computation of time, a day does not mean a year, un- 

1 Sec Faber's Dissertation on the Prophecies, &c, vol. i. p. 9. preface. 



Prophecy. 471 

less it be specifically asserted to do so. Neither is a week equivalent 
to seven years. A day is a day, and nothing else. The word must 
either be taken in its ordinary sense, or indefinitely. Sometimes it 
appears to be used in the one, and sometimes in the other accepta- 
tion. The latter or last days, mean the gospel dispensation. 

It is wholly incorrect to affirm, " that when the latter days and the 
last days are spoken of prophetically, in the New Testament, they bear 
two entirely different significations. 1 

20. Prophecies are sometimes delivered in the language of com- 
mand, agreeably to the idiom of the Hebrew and other oriental lan- 
guages. What is future is presented in the form of an injunction. 
When thus commissioned by God to declare a thing future, the pro- 
phets speak as if they had been appointed to do it themselves. Of 
this we have a good example in Isa. vi. 9, 10. : " Go and tell this 
people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not, and see ye indeed but 
perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their 
ears heavy, and shut their eyes ; lest they see with their eyes, and 
hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, 
and be healed ; " i. e. ye shall surely hear but not understand ; and 
ye shall surely see, but will not perceive : pronounce their hearts to 
be insensible, reluctant to hear and obey the truth, &c. &c. 2 

21. The Apostle Peter affirms of every Old Testament prophecy, 
that it is not Ihias sttiXvctscos, by which phrase we do not understand 
with Horsley and others self-interpretation or its own interpreter, but 
of one's own interpretation. The prophets were not of themselves 
interpreters of the divine counsels. They were led to utter their 
expositions of God's will, not by the suggestion of their own minds, 
but by the Holy Ghost. According to this view of the passage, the 
canon of Horsley, that as no prophecy is its own interpreter, the 
sense of each " is to be sought in the events of the world and in the 
harmony of the prophetic writings rather than in the bare terms of 
any single prediction," 3 falls to the ground. Indeed it is highly 
objectionable ; and even if followed could lead to no successful re- 
sult. 

22. It is necessary to compare the language and symbols of the 
Apocalypse with the Old Testament prophecies, especially with 
Daniel and Ezekiel. The diction is strongly Hebraised, and the 
imagery is Jewish, being founded upon the Hebrew poets. 

23. The kingdom which is the subject of the Apocalypse is not 
a temporal but a spiritual one. The progress of the Christian reli- 
gion is depicted, its successes and final triumph. Things that pro- 
moted or retarded it are mentioned only in subservience to the one 
object. 

24. The interpreter should guard against the fascinating idea of 
applying passing events in his own day as actually fulfilling particular 
predictions. This error has been often committed. Faber himself, 
who clearly discerned the danger, fell into it in various instances. 

1 Faber, vol. i. p. 30. 2 See my Hermeneutics, p. 502. 

3 See Horsley's Sermons, Sermon on Peter i. 20. 



472 Biblical Interpretation. 

CHAP. XL 

ON THE DOCTRINAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 

The Scriptures instruct mankind in different methods. Not only- 
do they contain prophecies and histories, but they delineate charac- 
ters also. In like manner they present doctrines for our acceptance. 
These doctrines are adduced in various modes. They are contained 
in precepts and promises as well as in positive affirmations. There 
is no precept which does not involve a doctrine ; there is no doctrine 
which does not include a promise. Yet it is not difficult to distin- 
guish what are usually known as doctrines from precepts and pro- 
mises. We shall therefore speak of them separately, as far as their 
interpretation is concerned. At present it is not our province to 
classify and arrange the doctrines of Scripture, or to form them into 
a system. Systematic theology does this. It is its business to col- 
lect and combine them all in their proper places and relations, that 
they may be studied together. To do this thoroughly it would be 
necessary to investigate the degrees of inspiration belonging to the 
prophetical, doctrinal, and historical writings respectively ; the in- 
fluence of the individuality of the authors upon their inspiration ; the 
occasional character belonging to the books in connection with their 
inspiration ; and the nature as well as the degree of biblical accommo- 
dation. The latter in particular has a special bearing upon scriptural 
doctrines. Here might be shown the necessity of accommodation. 
The interpreter might indicate accommodations which respect the 
form, and those which relate to the essence of revelation. Under the 
latter, we should distinguish those in the Old Testament and in the 
New. "With respect to the New Testament, we might point out 
accommodations in the discourses of Christ, in their expressions and 
ratiocination, so as to show the general direction of his teaching. 
After this, accommodations in the teaching of the apostles would 
remain to be noticed. Every reflecting interpreter of Scripture will 
perceive that these are topics of the highest importance and delicacy, 
demanding the ability of a master to discuss them thoroughly. Who- 
ever would proceed in the right manner to frame a system of doc- 
trine out of the scattered elements contained in the Bible, must have 
correct ideas of such matters, else his doctrinal creed, however care- 
fully collected and condensed, will want a true basis, and be easily 
overthrown. At present, we shall only refer to the difference be- 
tween the teachings of Jesus Christ and the apostles; since the funda- 
mental doctrines of Christianity are found almost exclusively in them. 
We presume that none can fail to notice that there is a difference 
between them. The diversities appear in the selection, develop- 
ment, and speciality. To explain them, two theories have been pro- 
pounded. In the one, the same theopneustic value is attached to the 
most inconsiderable words of the apostles and the most important 
instructions of the Redeemer. Accordingly such differences are ex- 
plained by the development of truth. Christ himself unfolded truth 



Doctrinal Interpretation of Scripture. 473 

to his disciples in an imperfect degree. He revealed it but partially, 
owing to the state of the minds with which he had more immediately 
to deal. He intended, however, that it should be progressively de- 
veloped under the direction of the Holy Spirit. As the adherents of 
Christianity gradually became more susceptible of high disclosures, 
more capable of understanding and appreciating truth, they received 
it from the apostles and their associates, according to the will of 
their divine Master, in a more complete state. 

We do not entirely coincide with this view. Doubtless it is true 
to a great extent ; but error is mixed up with it. It is liable to the 
objection of causing the teachings of the apostles to be preferred to 
those of Christ ; of restricting the latter, and of leading the church 
to build itself up far more by means of the Epistles to the Romans 
and Hebrews than by the Sermon on the Mount. By such as hold it, 
catechumens will almost unavoidably be taught the Pauline theology 
to the neglect of the Messianic itself. Children will be familiarised 
with the obscure and metaphysical teachings of Paul, rather than 
the simple lessons of Christ. Not that the two are essentially unlike ; 
but that in the system referred to the teachings of Christ are only 
the germ, while the apostolic writings contain the flowers and fruit. 
The individuality of the apostles is left too much out of sight in it ; 
and the view of inspiration assumed, which is the Gaussenian one, 
appears to us utterly untenable. 1 

The other theory, which has been correctly termed the Soci- 
nian one, is still more objectionable, because it neglects the prin- 
ciple of accommodation, and has regard to individuality alone. It 
does not recognise progress, but the opposite ; for the apostles are 
represented as having but imperfectly comprehended and set forth 
the doctrines of their divine Master. In this manner Revelation is 
virtually reduced to the discourses of Jesus Christ; and the apos- 
tolical epistles are depreciated. Paul's writings especially are unjustly 
judged. The theory logically carried out is most pernicious, because 
it conducts to the conclusion that the leading epistles of the New 
Testament are full of mistakes. 

There are three things which we look upon as clearly demon- 
strable in the writers of the Scriptures, and which serve together to 
solve the problem, how the diversities in the teachings of Christ and 
those of his apostles are to be explained. Neither the extreme 
orthodox nor the Socinian solution suffices to clear it up satisfac- 
torily. The three principles we allude to are those of individuality, 
occasionally, and accommodation. 

1. The principle of individuality, which presents to us the apostles 
as thinking agents retaining the peculiar basis and bent of their in- 
tellectual and moral powers — their constitutional temperament and 
tendencies notwithstanding and in alliance with the inspiration they 
possessed — leads us, while acknowledging in them a real and 
certain inspiration whereby they became true guides to the church 
in respect to general direction, to conclude that they had a partial 

1 See Cellerier, Manuel d'Hermeneutique, p. 343. § 187. 



474 Biblical Interpretation. 

and incomplete inspiration. It was not full and universal, em- 
bracing all aspects and particulars of a subject; nor was it in- 
clusive of all topics. In short, it was partial, and, so far, imperfect 
Hence their teaching was inferior to that of Jesus Christ. It was 
not erroneous; but it was less absolute, less free from all human 
ideas, less complete. Whoever reads the Acts of the Apostles, 
especially what is related in the assembly at Jerusalem respecting 
the discussions the apostles had (Acts xv.), will not be disposed to 
deny this. We may also refer to the different ways in which Paul 
and James speak of justification ; while the fundamental and com- 
plete doctrine on the subject is laid down by Christ. He prescribes 
love. Faith and works are but special forms and aspects of love to 
God. Yet the teaching of the apostles is shown by the theory of 
individuality to be inferior to that of Christ only in form. It is 
the same in essence, as far as the individuality of the writers appears. 

2. Again, the occasionality belonging to the apostolic writings 
implies a relativeness not merely of form, but of substance. It is an 
application of eternal truth to certain wants, dangers, churches. 
The application was both necessary and useful; yet the very fact 
of its being a mere adaptation of absolute truth to existing circum- 
stances and influences shows its incompleteness of character. It 
was the instrument of progress. 

3, Accommodation also assists in explaining the problem in ques- 
tion. According to this, Jesus gave that system which we term 
Christianity to the world, entire both as respects its origin and prin- 
ciples, but by little and little in its developments. On the other 
hand, the teaching of the apostles as compared with the Saviour's 
is characterised solely by the application and development of the 
basis already laid. But the form is more individual, and therefore 
less complete. It is not marked by progress; for that would imply 
something additional to the universal principles inculcated by the 
Saviour ; the foundation already laid by the Master is applied and 
explained. Nothing is added to it. 1 

These remarks must not be deemed inconsistent with various 
expressions in the New Testament which may readily occur to the 
mind in the present connection. Thus it is promised by the Saviour 
that when the Spirit of truth came, he should guide the apostles 
into all truth. " I have yet," says he, " many things to say unto 
you, but ye cannot bear them now." The Spirit was not to teach 
the apostles, after their Master's ascension, any new articles of doc- 
trine or faith, because Christ had said that he had made known to 
them all things which he had heard of the Father. The Spirit guided 
them into all necessary truth, whatsoever Christ had revealed to 
them. They did not understand the nature and bearings of the doc- 
trine he had taught them in the days of his flesh. Its comprehensive 
character and relations they did not perceive. They were not able 
to develop it ; and accordingly the Spirit led them into its tendency, 
relations, and genuine unfoldings. He taught them to see better the 
truth they had heard before. 

1 See Celleiier, p. 345. 



Doctrinal Interpretation of Scripture. 475 

The great source of what is termed doctrinal theology is the New 
Testament. And we believe that the apostolic Epistles have been 
too much regarded, as if they were all but the sole fountain where 
it should be sought. The Gospels containing the teachings of 
Christ have not been sufficiently attended to by the orthodox. Both 
should be taken together as the one rule of faith, neither being 
subordinated to the other without a good reason, least of all the 
Gospels subordinated to the Epistles. It is true that doctrinal truths 
occur also in the historical, prophetical, and poetical parts of the 
Old Testament, especially in the last ; but there they are infrequent, 
imperfectly enunciated and promulgated, in comparison with the 
light in which they are presented in the New Testament. They 
are noticed only in connection with and in a manner suited to that 
Judaism which prepared the way for a better system. 

What now is meant by doctrinal interpretation ? 

It is commonly understood to be that exposition of the Sacred 
Writings " by which we are enabled to acquire a correct and saving 
knowledge of the will of God concerning us." There may be some 
convenience in treating of doctrinal interpretation by itself, in a 
treatise on Hermeneutics ; but it must not be supposed that the 
interpretation of doctrines is a different process from that of any 
other portion of Scripture. We arrive at the sense of doctrines in 
the same way as at any other truths contained in the Bible. Pas- 
sages in which they appear must be dealt with as others. The 
context, parallels, scope, analogy of faith, &c. &c, are as applicable 
here as elsewhere. Indeed the instruments of interpretation are 
everywhere the same. We gather doctrinal truths from the Bible, 
just as the meaning of precepts, commands, promises, threatenings, 
is gathered, by virtue of the same appliances. Doctrinal interpreta- 
tion then is nothing more than the interpretation of doctrines ; and if 
it be asked how such truths ought to be interpreted, we reply, in the 
way all other truths historical, moral, prophetical, are apprehended 
and set forth. 

Here again we do not profess to furnish universal canons or rules 
to guide the reader to the right sense. It is impossible to present 
him with efficient aids leading directly to correct exposition of doc- 
trine. But we may perhaps lay down some general observations, 
which will prevent him from going astray. Our miscellaneous re- . 
marks will be more of a negative than positive character. If they 
do not conduct to a true perception of the fundamental doctrines of 
Christianity, they may prevent an erroneous apprehension and es- 
timate of them; which is all that rules on such a subject can do. 

1. In studying the doctrines of the Bible, no human system or 
set of preconceived notions should be allowed to interfere with what 
is stated, so as to bias the judgment respecting their meaning, value, 
or relative importance. In interpreting doctrinal truths, let not 
fancy, or inclination for previously formed ideas, control the sense 
to be elicited. Should the course here censured be pursued, one 
is endeavouring to have the Bible on his side rather than to be on 
the side of the Bible. Great blame attaches to commentators and 



476 Biblical Interpretation. 

expositors for neglecting this plain injunction, by carrying their own 
doctrinal system into Scripture, rather than educing it from Scrip- 
ture. Many a minister becomes more familiar with his theological 
system than he is with the Bible itself; and therefore his system 
stands first, and he interprets a text to square with his system, in- 
stead of paring and whittling off the latter to make it agree with 
the text. 1 Yet it must be confessed at the same time that it is not 
easy to follow the precept in question. Preconceived modern no- 
tions and systems are apt to sway all unconsciously. We cannot 
help taking with us to Scripture certain leading ideas of what it 
should be as coming from God, and what doctrines are worthy of 
Him. We have also philosophical opinions which influence the judg- 
ment in doctrinal matters. Obviously we cannot come to the Reve- 
lation of God's will with minds like tabulae rasae, or a white sheet 
of paper not written upon. But still the rule is useful. The judg- 
ment need not and ought not to be preoccupied or biassed by a 
system already formed ; else in explaining the doctrines of Scripture 
it will reduce them to a human standard. 

The mode in which systematic theology has been and is still 
studied has contributed to this injurious course. It has been usually 
taught in the synthetic method. Lecturers on theology furnish forth 
condensed, compacted systems ready made, for the reception of 
students. The doctrines are elaborated first, and then passages to 
corroborate or prove them are appended. But this is not the best 
method of proceeding. Rather should the opposite or analytic, be 
followed. All the texts that treat of ior refer to the same topic should 
be brought together and calmly compared, the expressions of one 
being modified by those of another ; after which the whole should 
be put into one connected proposition or series of propositions, to 
make a harmonious aggregate. And when all separate topics are 
thus elucidated, they should be relatively adjusted, so as to con- 
stitute together a system of doctrinal truth. In every case, the 
texts of Scripture itself should supply and indicate at first all that 
is revealed respecting a doctrine. They should be at once its basis 
and exponents, not a mere appendix to it. 

Abundant examples might be given of restraining and judging 
passages of Scripture relating to doctrinal truths by some prearranged 
system. Thus in Heb. ii. 9., where it is affirmed that Christ 
(i tasted death for every man" the advocates of a particular atone- 
ment say that, as the context mentions the bringing of many sons 
unto glory, every man here means every son. He died for every son 
who is brought unto glory. Others, with the same view of main- 
taining particular atonement, have recourse to such considerations 
as these : " Nor do they [expressions of this kind], when strictly 
scanned by the usus loquendi of the New Testament, decide directly 
against the views of those who advocate what is called a particular 
redemption (atonement). In all these phrases the subject evidently 
respects the offer of salvation, the opportunity to acquire it through 

1 See " The Whistling Thinker " in Spencer's Pastor's Sketches, second series, p. 236. 



Doctrinal Interpretation of Scripture. 477 

a Redeemer." l The phrase every man, with its associates, signifies 
that Christ actually died on behalf of every individual of the human 
race, which forms a basis for the offer of salvation to all. All are 
called upon to repent, as well as to believe that Christ died to save 
them ; and they shall be saved accordingly. Universal atonement is 
clearly implied in such expressions. 

2. Some doctrines are more prominent in Scripture than others. 
Doubtless some are less fundamental and important than others. A 
relative value attaches to them all. Hence a doctrinal interpreter 
should give them the same prominence as they have in the Bible. 
We are aware of the difficulty of following out this precept. It is 
not easy to ascertain the exact position which each occupies in the 
Scriptures. If there were but one or two it might be easily disco- 
vered ; but with so many, the case is otherwise. Here it is useful 
to observe those truths which are oftenest exhibited and enforced. 
What the writers dwell most upon may be presumed to possess the 
highest value. In proportion as they recommend them to accept- 
ance, should the expositor arrange them. Thus the doctrine of 
faith in Christ is strongly and frequently brought forward. The 
doctrine of the atonement runs through the entire Bible as the great 
central truth which Revelation was designed to announce and teach. 
Love to God and to man are also prominently enjoined. On the 
other hand, the doctrine of election, viz. " God's having foreordained 
particular persons, as monuments of his special love, to be made par- 
takers of grace here, and glory hereafter," 2 is seldom asserted in the 
New Testament. It is kept in the background, as a secret thing 
belonging to the purposes of God which none can know particularly 
or farther than it is revealed. 

3. In deducing a doctrine from the Scriptures, it will be ga- 
thered more accurately and clearly from such places as professedly 
treat of it, than from those in which it is noticed only incidentally. 
Thus the doctrine of justification by faith is copiously treated in the 
Epistle to the Romans. Next to that, the Epistle to the Galatians 
speaks of it at some length. The doctrine of love to the brethren is 
most fully handled by John. The doctrine of love to enemies is dis- 
tinctly inculcated in Christ's Sermon on the Mount; but only inci- 
dentally in a few places belonging to the Epistles, and very obscurely 
as well as imperfectly under the old dispensation. It is totally 
incorrect to say that " the law of love was as truly enjoined with re- 
gard to enemies under the old as under the new dispensation." 3 

4. Different passages of Scripture which speak of the same doc- 
trine may apparently contradict one another ; but as they cannot 
really clash, such inconsistencies should be carefully explained by 
mutual comparison. Along with these contradictions, and partly 
elucidatory of them, the gradual developments of doctrine in con- 
nection with the individualities of the various writers (which were 
not abolished by the fact of their inspiration) should be carefully 

1 Stuart, in Commentary on the verse. 

3 Ridgley's Body of Divinity, vol. i. pp. 389, 390., ed. 1814. 

* Testimony of the United Associate Synod of the Secession Church, p. 137. 



478 Biblical Interpretation. 

taken into account. As man is a complex being it may be readily 
supposed that diversities of this nature will occur. And as the three- 
fold nature of the Godhead is also taught in the Scriptures, it may 
be expected that the Godhead in its relations to men and influencing 
their various motives will tend to create contradictory phenomena 
in the statements of Scripture. 

In the case of these opposite affirmations, we must accept both as 
true, and ascertain the particular sense in which they are so. Thus 
it is said that " whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin,, and 
cannot sin" (1 Johniii. 9.) ; while we learn from other places that the 
righteous are never free from all sin, because they do not attain to 
perfection. Hence John must have intended to set forth the ab- 
stinence of the believer from habitual sin ; the destruction in him of a 
tendency to sin. His inclination to sin is effectually subdued, so that 
he does not sin habitually or generally, and cannot sin so far as the 
seed of the word is in him. That word prevents him from sinning so 
far as it is allowed its full and free influence, unrestrained by passion, 
prejudice, or impurity. 

Again, God is said to visit the sins of the fathers upon the children 
unto the third and fourth generations (Exod. xx. 5.); while in an- 
other place it is affirmed that the children do not bear the iniquities 
of their fathers. Both are true, neither excluding the other. (Ezek. 
xviii. 20.) 

The doctrine of divine influence is difficult of apprehension from 
its very nature ; and there are accordingly various statements about it 
in the Bible which appear to clash among themselves. Thus it is said 
that God hardened Pharaoh' 1 s heart. It is also affirmed, that Pharaoh 
hardened his own heart. These assertions are not easily reconciled. 
We are unable satisfactorily and entirely to harmonise them. Both 
however must be received. We cannot expect to understand all the 
peculiarities of a divine revelation like that which the Scriptures 
contain, and are forced to confess our ignorance. We wait for a solu- 
tion of many problems arising out of the biblical records. 

The principle qui facit per alium facit per se will help to explain 
some contradictory phenomena. 

Again, various qualities are stated as essential to salvation, one in 
one passage, another in another. Thus faith is said to save (Luke 
vii. 50.); by grace are ye saved (Eph. ii. 5.); a man is justified by 
faith (Rom. iii. 28.), he is justified by grace (Rom. iii. 24.), he is 
justified by the blood of Christ (Rom. v. 9.), he is justified by works 
(James ii. 24.). In other places love is represented as the great justi- 
fying principle in the sight of God. One quality of the mind is 
connected with and implies another. Faith and love necessarily go 
together. Works are connected with both. 

4. The mode in which doctrines are revealed or taught in Scrip- 
ture should be carefully studied. Some are clearly and expressly 
affirmed, others are inferred. Most perhaps, even such as are funda- 
mental, are properly doctrines of inference. The doctrine of the 
Trinity is such. In no one place is it expressly asserted that the 
three persons are both equal and one. But inasmuch as the Father, 



Doctrinal Interpretation of Scripture. 479 

Son, and Holy Spirit, are represented as divine in the highest sense ; 
and as we know that there is but one God, we infer that the three 
are one. It does not follow, however, that a doctrine is less certain 
because we infer it from Scripture statements. That of the Trinity 
is equally firm though we draw one inference in educing it from 
Scripture. It is true that ihe degree of probability attaching to a 
doctrine will usually become less in proportion to the number of 
steps taken in deducing it from the Bible. If there be but one or 
two, and if these are plain, the doctrine is sure and scriptural. But 
if the steps proceed beyond three or four, the evidence becomes less 
satisfactory. Remote deductions must not be set forth as inspired 
propositions. Reason is employed in making them, and reason is 
fallible. In every case it is best to abide closely by the language of 
Scripture, explaining it as naturally and correctly as possible. But 
when Bible propositions, which may themselves be put together by 
aid of reason, are taken as the basis to derive a number of inferential 
truths from, the truths so resulting must be looked upon with reserve, 
as the teachings of Scripture. They cannot be important ; and they 
may be incorrect. They are perhaps drawn from a fountain which 
was not intended to furnish them. Many scholastic doctrines have 
arisen in this method, and received a degree of acceptance by no 
means due to them. They are the result of philosophical distinctions 
or metaphysical speculations, rather than the plain teachings of God's 
word. All systematic theology partakes of them. Thus some 
broadly lay down the proposition that ice are guilty of Adam's sin. 
" I may be asked, says one, How can we be guilty of Adam's sin ? 
I know not the how ; the fact I know, for God is my author. It is 
profane to inquire further than God has revealed. Let us believe 
like little children. God testifies, ' By one man's disobedience the 
many were made sinners.' This should be enough for any who 
reverence God." 1 Here is a deduction from Scripture converted 
at once into a Scripture doctrine. And not only is it a metaphysical 
inference from biblical language, but a false one. Because it is said 
that by the one mans disobedience the many were made sinners (Rom. 
v. 19.) it does not follow that the sinfulness of that head was trans- 
ferred to them, or that his sin was imputed to them. They became 
sinners themselves from their connection with Adam. Not that 
Adam's sin was really reckoned theirs, and therefore they became 
guilty ; but that Adam's sin led to their sinning, which personal sin 
rendered them guilty. 

Because man's nature is depraved, a representation of all sinners is 
sometimes put in the darkest colours, as though all were equally 
depraved and unable to attempt any thing proper for recovering them- 
selves from that state. But that all sinners are alike depraved or 
equally disinclined to good is an inference from the language of Scrip- 
ture which will not stand the test. Men are by nature dead in 
trespasses and sins ; they are asleep in sin ; they are spiritually deaf, 
blind, naked, destitute ; the heart is deceitful above all things and 

1 Carson, Examination of the Principles of Biblical Interpretation of Ernesti, Ammon, 
Stuart, and other Philologists, p. 241. 



480 Biblical Interpretation. 

grievously infirm ; they are without strength ; there is none that 
doeth good, no not one ; but it is wrong to deduce from this that 
every individual is equally so, or to take the worst as the normal 
state and hold it forth as the condition of every person. By a series of 
inferences many draw out the picture at length, so that they can de- 
scribe the state of the understanding, of the conscience, and of the 
will. " He is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite unto 
all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that 
continually." 1 This statement professes to be founded upon and de- 
duced from Scripture. But it is exaggerated and partially incorrect. 
Mankind generally are not " utterly disabled unto all that is spiritu- 
ally good," neither are they " wholly inclined to all evil." 

As long as the expositor abides by Scripture language fairly under- 
stood, he is on safe ground ; but when he draws deductions from doc- 
trinal propositions or general statements, he is liable to err. In- 
ferences deduced from the Bible cannot have the same authority with 
doctrines directly founded on the written word. 

5. Regard must be had to the times and places in which the books 
of Scripture were written. Modern notions and systems which 
appear important to us were probably unknown then. Our theology 
should not be transferred to them as it is ; but taken from them 
in parts, and put together. This precept is violated by such divines 
as quote Gen. vi. 5., " And God saw that the wickedness of man was 
great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his 
heart was only evil continually," to prove that men are now, under 
the gospel dispensation, " inclined to all evil and that continually." 
The language refers to men just before the flood — to the early inha- 
bitants of those countries which were the cradle of the human race, 
whose ways had become so grievously wicked that they brought 
the flood as a destroying judgment. 

6. The peculiar condition of the churches or persons to whom the 
Epistles were first addressed should be known and .attended to, in 
order that the doctrines contained in those Epistles may be fairly 
gathered. For it happens that the ideas inculcated were such as the 
writers thought to be suitable in the circumstances ; and that their 
prominence in a certain book is merely relative, to be explained by 
the situation of the individuals addressed and not by their intrinsic or 
absolute value in the general scheme of revelation. Doctrinal pas- 
sages can be reduced to their true proportions and explained in their 
proper light only by taking into account the character and spirit of 
the parties to whom they were first directed. When this is done by 
the interpreter, he will be in less danger of miscalculating their im- 
port and scope ; and will readily reconcile them with any others 
which they may seem to contradict. Thus the Epistle to the Romans 
is uncontroversial in scope and design, because no schism or serious 
division had arisen in the church at Rome. Judaising Christians 
zealous for the inculcation of the law of Moses had as yet made no 
impression on the believers there ; nor had any tendency of that kind 

1 See the Larger Catechism of the Westminster Divines, answer to question 25. 



Doctrinal Interpretation of Scripture. 481 

manifested itself among them, though part of the church, not the 
majority, consisted of Jewish Christians. Hence we can see the 
principle involved in Horn. xiv. 5., " One man esteemeth one day 
above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man 
be fully persuaded in his own mind." Some persons in the church 
were weak in faith, and regarded one day as holier than another. 
These were probably Jewish Christians, who had not fully divested 
themselves of all their Jewish prepossessions nor got out into the full 
light and exercise of gospel freedom ; but were still troubled with con- 
scientious scruples respecting the festivals and fast-days observed by 
the Jews according to their law, as though they were more sacred 
than ordinary days. Others in the church, the heathen converts, re- 
garded every day as alike sacred. The apostle condemns neither the 
one nor the other. He gives no decision on the point. He rests the 
whole matter on the strength of inward conviction. That should 
regulate all. If one be conscientiously convinced that every day is 
equally sacred, he is right in acting out his convictions. If another 
regard one day as more sacred than another, let him follow his 
Christian convictions on that point. Both are right if they are 
firmly persuaded of their respective sentiments. But though the 
apostle pronounces no judgment in favour of the one view more than 
the other, it is apparent from the context that he coincides with such 
as esteemed every day alike. The one (o? fisv) who regarded one 
day as holier than another, is he who is called iceak in the context, 
showing by contrast that the other (os 8s) was stronger in faith. The 
passage therefore involves this principle or doctrine, that in the view 
of Christian conviction every day is alike sacred. Christian know- 
ledge, freedom, and conscientiousness arrive at the result in question. 
This plain inference from the passage, so obvious as to be in- 
controvertible, does not at all clash with the words of the same 
apostle in the Galatian Epistle. It is rather corroborated by them. 
Let it be remembered that the Galatian Epistle is polemical to 
a considerable extent. Judaising Christians had corrupted the in- 
fant churches in Galatia, drawing them away from the simplicity 
of the faith to the observance of the Mosaic law as necessary 
to salvation. " Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years," 
says Paul : " I am afraid lest I have bestowed upon you labour 
in vain." (Gal. iv. 10, 11.) Here the Gentile Christians who 
constituted the body of the churches are addressed. They had been 
seduced to the stand-point of the Jewish law by the Judaisers. 
They had begun to keep Jewish feast and fast days in the spirit 
of a slavish superstition. Descending thus from a higher to a lower 
position under the gospel, falling from freedom into bondage, the 
apostle naturally censures them. They had degenerated. Their 
minds had been corrupted by a legalism which threatened to destroy 
right ideas of salvation by Christ apart from the deeds of the law. 
Had they been Jewish Christians, afraid from conscientious scruples 
and weakness of faith to come out fully into the broad light of 
gospel truth, the apostle would not have blamed them ; because, in 
that case, they only wanted a little more knowledge to dissipate their 

VOL. II. I I 



482 Biblical Interpretation. 

ancient prepossessions ; but, as they -were Gentile converts, the 
apostle regards it as a downward step in them to embrace legal 
notions, and to consider the observance of certain days, consecrated 
by usage among the Jews, as having to do with the working out of 
their salvation under the gospel. Thus this passage, so far from 
appearing really to contradict the other, corroborates the principle 
contained in it, the principle of Christian liberty which absolves the 
enlightened, conscientious believer from looking upon one day as 
holier in itself than another. 

7. Akin to the preceding remark is another observation, viz., if a 
doctrinal section or passage refer directly or indirectly to any contro- 
versy agitated at the time the book or epistle in which it occurs Avas 
written, that controversy should be known by the interpreter, else he 
cannot perceive or exhibit the doctrine inculcated in a satisfactory 
manner. Sometimes the Jewish writings will throw light upon the 
controversies ; but generally speaking, the New Testament itself 
affords the only certain notices of them ; for early church history can 
hardly be used with much advantage on the point. If employed at 
all, it must be done cautiously, for fear of transferring controversies 
developed to the time of the same controversies in germ only. This 
mistake indeed has been committed. Thus it has been asserted by 
many that John's Gospel was written to refute the false notions of 
Cerinthus, which is contrary to the genius of the Gospel itself, and 
opposed to other considerations. 

Most of the questions agitated in the early Christian churches 
originated in the peculiar condition of them. Those churches con- 
sisted of Jews and Gentiles ; retaining several of their former pre- 
possessions and opinions, which they were not so enlightened as to 
lay aside at once. Hence the controversy respecting the importance 
and necessity of the ceremonial law to the Gentile converts, which is 
referred to in the Epistle to the Galatians. Hence too the recep- 
tion of the Gentiles into the kingdom of God equally with the Jews, 
which was contrary to the hereditary pride and prejudice of the 
latter ; to which the apostle alludes in the Epistle to the Romans, 
proving his position from the Old Testament. Various erroneous 
tenets are referred to with disapprobation by the Apostle Paul in his 
Epistles, such as the worshipping of angels, &c. (Col. ii. 18.). As 
the reverence due to angels is a disputed point between Protestants 
and Homanists, we shall notice this passage in the Colossian Epistle 
particularly. It is obvious that Paul has reference to certain false 
teachers in his day, who had endeavoured to seduce the converts at 
Colosse from the true faith, and against whom he warns the latter. 
The false teachers in question were Jewish converts addicted to 
theosophic asceticism, who sought to cast Christianity in the mould 
of their peculiar philosophy. Their tenets formed the germ of the 
later Judaising Gnosticism. They paid a superstitious reverence to 
angels, not only because angels were present in great numbers at the 
giving of the law, but because mysterious powers were supposed to 
proceed from them, which elevated the initiated far above the multi- 
tude. The apostle in this passage condemns their " voluntary 



Doctrinal Interpretation of Scripture. 483 

humility and worshipping of angels." Their humility was affected 
and superstitious. Their homage to angels was inconsistent with 
the maintenance of Christ's supreme rank. The tenor of the whole 
passage, with its context, shows that the apostle disapproves of 
Oprja-KSia rwv dyysXwv, whether it be supreme worship offered to 
angels or inferior homage. We hold it therefore to be inconsistent 
with the prayers offered to angels in the Roman Catholic Church. It 
is incorrect to say, as Romanists do here, that Paul alludes to the 
doctrine of Simon Magus and others, who taught angels to be our 
mediators, not Christ, and prescribed sacrifices to be offered to them, 
including both bad and good angels. 1 This is a mere hypothesis for 
the purpose of bringing the text into harmony with the practice of 
offering prayers to the holy angels. But that doctrine is condemned 
not only by the present Epistle, but the genius and spirit of the Bible 
generally. Instead of showing true humility on the part of the 
worshipper carrying his prayers in the first instance to angels, it 
evinces a superstitious pride. 

8. The doctrinal contents of the New Testament books, especially 
of the Pauline Epistles, will be much better understood if the inter- 
preter carefully attend to the transition of persons which frequently 
occurs in them. 

The pronouns I, ice, you, &c. are of great importance in the 
Epistles to the Romans, Galatians, Ephesians, and Colossians. Thus 
in Eph. i. 12. iifxets, ice, denotes Paul himself and the Jews, who 
were the first fruits of Christianity. Hitherto it had been used 
in a more general sense to signify all the elect, all believers without 
reference to their previous state ; but now the pronoun includes him- 
self and the Jews, who were the first fruits of Christianity. The 
word TrposkTUKOTas shows that Jews alone in opposition to heathens 
are meant, for they had the expectation of Messiah before he ap- 
peared, whereas the heathen had no knowledge of him. In verse 13. 
vfisls, you, means the Ephesians, who had been heathen. It stands 
in contrast with r/fxscs in the preceding verse. This distinction be- 
tween the we and you in the verses has been dogmatically denied by 
Eadie. 2 Instead of being " a gratuitous assumption," as he calls it, 
it is a well-grounded exegetical sentiment, which none but a rash 
expositor would venture to deny. 

Many erroneous sentiments have been deduced, at least in part, 
from want of perceiving the proper meaning of we, as employed by 
the Apostle Paul. Thus in 2 Cor. v. 18 — 20. the plural pronoun 
does not mean the apostles and all other ministers of the gospel. It 
simply means the writer himself; and Conybeare is right in trans- 
lating it into the singular number in the passage. 3 Paul says, In 
Christ's stead, I am an ambassador (verse 20.). No doubt what was 
true of one apostle was true of all, because their office was one 
and the same. They were all ambassadors, and stood in Christ's 
stead towards men. Poole is totally wrong in affirming that " the 

1 See the note in the Ehemish New Testament. 

2 Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians, p. 57 

3 The Life and Epistles of St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 104. 

ii 2 



484 Biblical Interpretation. 

apostle here givetli us a true notion not only of apostles, which were 
the first and principal ministers of the gospel, but of all other minis- 
ters ; teaching us what all ministers should be, and what all true 
ministers of the gospel are." 1 In no one place of the New Testa- 
ment does the pronoun we (Jj^ii) .mean Paul himself comprehending 
the other apostles and preachers of the gospel. If it ever comprehend 
others besides himself and his fellow apostles, it must in that case in- 
clude Christians generally, without introducing a distinction among 
Christians into ministers of the gospel and others, and thereby com- 
prehending the one class, while excluding such as are not preachers 
by profession. The distinction between clergy and laity was un- 
known to the apostolic period. 

We know of no writer on the New Testament who has been so 
careful and correct in pointing out the various transitions of persons 
in the Epistles of Paul as Mr. Conybeare. Locke also paid special 
attention to the point, but was not always successful. 

9. No article of faith can be deduced from single texts which are 
obscure. If a doctrine be of consequence or value in the economy 
of salvation, it will be plainly taught or inculcated in different places, 
so that it may be seen from all together in a clear light. Thus 
Roman Catholics derive the doctrine of extreme unction, which is 
one of their saeraments, from James v. 14. But the basis is too 
small and insecure for it to rest upon. The passage is not clear, and 
therefore should not, even for that single reason, be taken as the 
support of a tenet which is exalted to an important place in the esti- 
mation of the Romish Church. 

10. No article of faith should be established from parables, alle- 
gories, or single figurative texts. The doctrines of the gospel should 
be learned in the first place from other passages, and then perhaps 
they may be illustrated or confirmed from parables or metaphorical 
representations. 

Thus in the parabolical representation of the rich man and 
Lazarus, where the rich man requests Abraham to send Lazarus to 
his father's house, to testify unto his five brethren lest they also 
should come into the place of torment, Romanists deduce from the 
Avords this doctrine, that " if those in hell have means to express 
their cogitations and desires, and to be understood of Abraham so 
far distant both by place and condition, much rather may the living 
pray to the saints and be heard of them." 2 Surely it were much better 
and safer to deduce this doctrine, that if those in hell have such 
charitable affections, much more the saints in heaven, It is illogical 
and unwarranted to deduce any article of faith from the desire of 
the rich man in hell expressed to Abraham in heaven, 

11. No doctrine can be found in or established from the Scriptures 
that is contrary to reason or the analogy of faith. For the Bible and 
reason are from the same source. The giver of both is the same. 
God cannot contradict himself. The word of God must be agreeable 
to sound reason. " Reason," says Locke, " is natural revelation, 

* Annotations on the Bible. - See Rhemish note. 



Doctrinal Interpretation of Scripture. 485 

whereby the eternal father of light and fountain of all knowledge 
communicates to mankind that portion of truth which he has laid 
within the reaeli of their natural faculties. Revelation is natural 
reason enlarged by a new set of discoveries communicated by God 
immediately, which reason vouches the truth of by the testimony 
and proofs it gives that they come from God. So that he that takes 
away reason, to make way for revelation, puts out the light of both, 
and does much-what the same as if he would persuade a man to 
put out his eyes, the better to receive the remote light of an invisible 
star by a telescope." 1 But though nothing in the Bible be contrary 
to reason, some things may be and are above reason. These are pro- 
per subjects of faith. They must be received on the authority of 
God. The doctrine of transubstantiation cannot be received as a 
scriptural one, it being opposed both to reason and the evidence of 
the senses. But the doctrine of the Trinity, properly understood 
and expressed, is not contrary to reason. We have already spoken of 
the analogy of faith, which may be used as a test to try the scrip- 
turality of doctrines less clear than such as enter into that analogy. 

From Eph. ii. 3. Calvin deduces this doctrine of original sin, that 
" we are born with sin as serpents bring their venom from the 
womb." a Such a view is contrary both to the analogy of faith and 
to reason. The general tenor of Scripture shows man to be ac- 
countable to God. Here his responsibility is destroyed. As man 
is commanded to repent and believe, he has the physical ability 
to do so ; ability being commensurate with obligation. Besides, rea- 
son teaches that sin can only be a voluntary transgression of known 
law. 3 And with this the Bible coincides. Hence sin cannot pro- 
perly be predicated of infants from their very birth. They do not 
bring sin with them into the world, as serpents bring their poison. 
They have in them an undeveloped propensity which will naturally 
lead to sin. They have the germ of what afterwards becomes sinful 
and sin. But the transgression of laio which sin is, implies a know- 
ledge of the divine law that does not belong to infants. It would 
not be difficult to show that the word rendered nature, and under- 
stood of birth or generation by Calvin and Edwards, signifies in 
Eph. ii. 3. the natural state or condition of man, as opposed to his 
regenerate state. We explain it not of the original nature of man 
before it has time or opportunity to manifest itself, not of the nature 
he possesses at his very birth, but of the state in which he finds him-' 
self after he has become a voluntary agent. And this harmonises 
with the immediate context. The view taken of the passage by 
Calvin and Edwards is opposed to the general principles taught or 
sanctioned by Scripture, which Christians generally recognise. It is 
also opposed to man's individual responsibility. 

12. The doctrines of Scripture should all be studied and regarded 
in the light of Scripture alone. If they be otherwise derived from 

1 On the Human Undei standing, bookiv. chapter 10. § 4. 

2 Commentary on the verse. 

3 See the Article What is Sin, in the American Biblical Repository, for 1839, p. 26], 
et seqq. 

I I 3 



486 Biblical Interpretation. 

it, — if while tliey are being examined and collected in the Bible 
they be viewed in connection with the controversies which have been 
conducted at different times about them, — it is very probable that 
they will fail to be apprehended in their biblical simplicity. It is 
therefore a pernicious course to study the history of a doctrine first. 
That ought to be the last thing learned. Let it be ascertained first 
in the light of revelation alone, and interpreted in language as near 
to the biblical as a right understanding of it will allow ; let it be 
viewed in all its aspects and relations, as indicated in that source ; 
and then it has a better opportunity of being adduced by the doc- 
trinal interpreter in its proper aspect and due proportions. If this 
course were steadily pursued, we believe that many truths now dis- 
figured by a scholastic or metaphysical technicality would commend 
themselves to the common-sense apprehension of unlettered men far 
more readily, and be embraced all the more heartily, as scriptural. 

We may take as an example what is termed in theological systems 
the procession of the Holy Spirit. 

In the first place, because it is written in John xv. 26., " the 
Spirit of truth ivhich proceedeth from the Father" (to nrvsvpLa rfjs 
akrjOsias o irapa tov irarpos sKTTopsvsTat), it is supposed that 
the words refer ontologically to the essential nature of the Spirit. 
He proceeds forth from the Father essentially. On that account he 
is subordinate to the Father. 

In the second place, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father, he 
proceeds from the Son also. See chapter xvi. 15. and those passages 
where the Spirit is said to be His Spirit, Rom. viii. 9. ; Gal. iv. 6. ; 
Phil. i. 19. ; 1 Pet. i. II. 1 " The Latin fathers," says Hill, « argued 
in this manner. Since the Spirit who is called in Scripture the 
Spirit of God, is called also the Spirit of his Son; and since the 
Spirit, who is sent by the Father, is also said to be sent by the Son ; 
it follows that there is the same subordination of the Spirit to the 
Son as to the Father. But the subordination of the Spirit to the 
Father is grounded upon his proceeding from the Father, and his 
being subordinate to the Son must have the same foundation, i. e. as 
the divine nature was communicated by the Father to the Son, so it 
was communicated by the Father and the Son to the Holy Ghost." 2 

We approve of the conduct of the Greek fathers generally, who 
would not adopt the expression that the Spirit proceeds from the Son 
as well as the Father, because they thought it unscriptural. It is 
not said in Scripture that the Spirit proceedeth from the Son (sktto- 
psvsrat) ; and therefore the council of Constantinople, A. D. 381, wisely 
adopted the language of the New Testament and none other, to sk 
tov iraTpbs s/c7ropsv6p,£vov. It was a wrong step in the Latin church 
to proceed farther, and draw a metaphysical inference on such a sub- 
ject, which is at least questionable. We cannot sanction their pro- 
cedure or their conclusion. All that should be done on a point 
of this kind by the theological interpreter should be simply to ascer- 
tain, whether s/cn-opsvsTai in John xv. 26. denotes the communication 

1 Comp. Alford's note on the verse. 

2 Lectures on Divinity, vol. i. p. 331. 3rd ed. 



Moral Interpretation of Scripture. 487 

of the divine nature by the Father to the Holy Ghost. De Wette 
denies that it refers to the essence of the Spirit ; and explains it of 
his manifestation, his expression in Christian activity of which the 
Father is the prime source. But the ancient church took it meta- 
physically or ontologically of immanent subsistence-relation. Most re- 
cent interpreters suppose it to be used historically not metaphysically, 
as being parallel to ov eyco irifxi^w irapa tov irajpos. 1 



CHAP. XII. 

ON THE MORAL INTERPRETATION OF SCRIPTURE. 

The moral parts of Scripture embrace its precepts and examples. 
Precepts have been divided into two kinds, viz. moral and positive. 
The former are those the reasons of which we see ; the latter those 
whose reasons are unknown to us. The former arise out of the 
necessary and natural relation in which man stands to his Creator; 
whereas the latter depend on the will of God alone. Hence the 
moral are immutable; the positive, changeable. The moral can 
never be indifferent, they must always be the same in their nature ; 
while the positive are indifferent till they be given. The former are 
written on our hearts, interwoven with our very nature ; while the 
latter are merely commanded in the Bible. The former are univer- 
sally obligatory, the latter not. The former are intimately and 
necessarily joined together, the latter are not necessarily so. Thus 
they differ in their ground, nature, evidence, extent of obligation, 
and connection. 

But though moral and positive precepts, considered in themselves, 
differ mainly in that we see the reasons of the one and not the other ; 
yet they are in some respects alike. The positive have something 
of a moral nature, and so far we may see the reason of them. So 
far as they are alike, we discern the reasons of both ; so far as they 
are different, we see the reasons of the former, not of the latter. 
Positive institutions or precepts in general, inasmuch as the reason 
of them is generally apparent, have the nature of moral commands. 
Thus the external worship of God is a moral duty. But this positive 
precept or that one has not the nature of a moral command, since the 
particular reason of it is not obvious. Thus the particular mode of 
external worship is a positive duty merely. 2 

From what has just been stated it follows, that in case of competi- 
tion the moral are to be obeyed in preference to the positive. This 
is sanctioned by Scripture, where it is written, " I will have mercy 
and not sacrifice." Our Lord himself prefers moral duties to positive 
ones. It follows also, that the moral precepts cannot be abridged 
under any circumstances which may occur. They continue the same 
in number and obligation. The positive ones may be lessened or 

1 See Luthardt's Das Johanneische Evangelium, vol. ii p. 335. 

2 See Butler's \rialogv, part ii. chapter 1 . 

i I 4 



488 Biblical Interpretation. 

done away at the will of Him who gave them, but not at the will of 
man. Man has no more reason to add to, take from, or dispense 
with them, than he has cause for treating the moral in the same 
manner. They are matter of pure revelation, and therefore he has 
no control over them further than to obey them. God has changed 
his own positive institutions according to times and circumstances. 
He has done so not because man makes them final, or puts them in 
competition with spirituality, or substitutes them for it ; but because 
the Deity sees and knows the proper time when the discipline of 
the moral should take the place of that of the positive, and in what 
proportion. 1 It is not easy always to distinguish a moral from a 
positive precept. Thus the Westminster divines hold 2 that the ob- 
servance of the sabbath is part of the moral law. Whately on the 
other hand maintains, that the fourth commandment is a positive pre- 
cept. 3 Both are right and both wrong. 

The precepts of the Bible are peculiar in their nature, inasmuch 
as they refer to the motives or dispositions of the mind from which 
actions proceed, rather than the actions themselves. They touch 
the springs of conduct, and are intended to regulate them. Hence 
all the moral precepts are comprehensive principles capable of 
being reduced to a very few spiritual maxims. This is apparent 
from the New Testament in particular, where our Lord and his 
apostles inculcate the great law of love as the substance of all 
the commandments, showing the spirituality of the decalogue, which 
the Jews had failed to perceive, else they would not have placed 
true religion in ritual observances or outward deeds, but in in- 
ward holiness. The precepts of the Bible are both spiritual and 
comprehensive, reaching to the thoughts and intents of the heart, 
and admitting of innumerable applications according to variety of 
circumstances. Had they been specific and particular, they must 
have been far more numerous ; and even then they would not have 
applied to all situations and circumstances ; but being general, they 
become principles of morality Avorthy of the divine Being from whom 
they proceed. 

The moral parts of the Bible should not all be thrown together, 
as is often done by the interpreter. Those in the Old Testament 
should be separated from those of the New. The reason of this is 
apparent. The moral system of Revelation was not set forth all at 
once. It was unfolded gradually, agreeably to the will of God and 
in adaptation to the history of humanity. 

In studying the moral parts of the Old Testament, and de- 
ducing from them the ethics of the whole, it will be desirable to 
consider the peculiar moral ideas which were inculcated at different 
periods. We may take the time before Moses as described in the 
book of Genesis ; the moral doctrines which are found in the books 
attributed to Moses; those found in the compositions of David; those 
in Job and Solomon's writings ; such as appear in the prophets, and 
in the book of Ecclesiastes. We do not intend to insinuate by this the 

1 See Butler's Analogy, part ii. chap. 

% Confession of Faith, chapter xxi. 7. s Thoughts on the Sabbath. 



Moral Interpretation of Scripture. 489 

idea that the ethics of the Old Testament or its moral rules varied 
at these different times otherwise than in unimportant peculiarities 
of development : as far as the morality came directly from a divine 
source, it was essentially the same. In the New Testament, it is 
most fully and completely unfolded ; yet it is substantially the same 
as under the ancient economy. There was a gradual revelation of 
it. But as the morality of the Old Testament came from a divine 
source indirectly and remotely in many cases, it contracted some- 
what of the human and the corrupt from the media reflecting it. 
In the first place, it was not clearly revealed to the saints under the 
ancient dispensation, — a fact in harmony with their state of pupilage 
and preparation. And then more of the human adhered to it. The 
following observations are founded on both Testaments. 

1. In the Mosaic laws and precepts the interpreter should sepa- 
rate such as are political or relate to mere external culture, from 
such as are moral. And in regard to the latter — those that were 
of moral obligation — he should distinguish what is local and tem- 
porary from what is of perpetual obligation. 

The same should be done in relation to the moral precepts of our 
Lord and the apostles. The local and transient should be divided 
off from the permanent. Various particulars assist in this. Thus 
it may be indicated more or less plainly that a thing is prescribed 
only for certain persons and times. An example occurs in the 
apostolic decrees given in Acts xv. 13 — 21. In 1 Cor. vii. 26. 
celibacy is enjoined on account of " the present distress." In 
Luke x. 4. it is evident that the precept is meant only for the 
seventy disciples. We must also consider whether passages contain 
counsels or opinions on the part of the writers — whether the authors 
speak by inspiration or not. Thus the Apostle Paul says in 1 Cor. 
vii. 25., " Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the 
Lord: yet I give my judgment," Sfc. In another place of the same 
chapter he declares, " I speak this by permission, and not of com- 
mandment." 1 

The difficulty of thus separating the local, the temporary, the 
transient, from what is obligatory in all ages, is very considerable 
in many cases. It is easy to announce in general terms that " not 
only are all the important laws of morality permanent, but all those 
general rules of conduct, and institutions which are evidently cal- 
culated in religion to promote the good of mankind and the glory 
of God ; " but it is not easy in practice to separate the precepts or 
articles Avhich are circumstantial and temporary from those of uni- 
versal obligation. It has been said that many things are enjoined 
in the discourses of Christ which related immediately to the pur- 
suits, manners, and times of the apostles, and cannot be transferred 
to the whole brotherhood of Christians at any time or place ; " 2 and 
we are not disposed to deny the existence of some such directions. 
But Ave fear that such as propound the rule in cpiestion are disposed 

1 See Bauer's Entwurf einer Hermeneutik, § 155. p. 128. 

2 Teller's Appendix to Turretin's Tractatus de Sacra? Scriptura Interpretatione, 
p. 367. 



490 Biblical Interpretation. 

to apply it extensively and injudiciously. Thus one says that of 
the numerous duties inculcated on the apostles alone in the Sermon 
on the Mount, Luke vi. 27. is an example ! " Love your enemies, 
do good to them which hate you." 1 This is false. Another refers 
to the form of prayer taught by Christ to his disciples. If that 
were repeated before rich and poor alike, so that both were to re- 
spond, what, says he, would the former understand by the words, 
" Give us this day our daily bread," when they have abundance ? 
An apostle who was poor and needy might say so, not a rich man. 2 
Here the Lord's Prayer is quite misapprehended. No precept or 
petition in it belongs to the apostles exclusively. A rich man as 
well as a poor one may properly use the petition, " give us this day 
our daily bread," for riches are entirely at the disposal of God, who 
can take them away in a moment. We believe that nothing but a 
holy circumspection will enable the interpreter to distinguish the 
circumstantial and temporary from the essential and obligatory. 
One possessed of it will look to the context and scope of every 
passage, examining it in the light of parallels and the analogy of 
faith. He will consider the genius of true religion and judge ac- 
cordingly. 

2. Moral propositions or discourses are commonly expressed in 
universal terms — in language general and indefinite. The style of 
Oriental writers is Oriental, and may seem exaggerated or hyper- 
bolical. This may happen the more readily because it is very figu- 
rative, the similitudes and figures being sometimes far-fetched or 
inflated. It is easy to see why moral precepts are propounded in 
this manner. They are of universal obligation, and must be set 
forth in a manner comprehensive and forcible. 

In consequence of the universal, indefinite, and popular expres- 
sions in which precepts are conveyed, they are liable to be urged 
too far. Their utmost extent of meaning is elicited. Every phrase 
and word is taken in its exact and full sense. This course is often 
attended with serious mistakes. To insist upon every minute par- 
ticular with mathematical or metaphysical accuracy is not the way 
to treat aright the language of the Bible. Various limitations 
should be applied. Just cautions and modifications must be attended 
to. We admit that universal propositions may be and are used in 
morals, which admit of no abridgment or limitation ; but in some 
cases they refuse to be pressed to their full extent of meaning. 
He who attempts to do so urges them too far and elicits a wrong 
sense. If therefore moral propositions or discourses are not to be 
rigorously carried out to all the amplitude of ideas the individual 
expressions will allow, if they should be understood with certain 
just limitations, the question arises, how are we to ascertain the 
degree of latitude with which they should be accepted? What 
criterion will enable us to decide upon the proper extent to which 
the general sense is to be carried out? To this, Turretin replies, 
the nature of the thing and various circumstances will furnish a 

1 Bauer, ut supra. 2 Teller, ut supra, p. 367. 



J 



Moral Interpretation of Scripture. 491 

criterion. 1 But that is very general language — too general to afford 
a test in a matter both difficult and delicate. Nor is Bauer's 2 mo- 
rality of reason a good or safe thing, reason being an insecure guide 
in man's present condition. Perhaps the context is what must be 
chiefly relied upon, reason of course judging and determining the 
nature of the case as described, and how far it may properly admit 
of restriction. 

The following limitations are stated and exemplified by Tur- 
retin. 3 

Moral propositions which are universal or indefinite sometimes 
denote nothing more than natural fitness or the tendency of a thing 
to produce a certain eifect, though the effect often fails. Thus, 
Prov. xv. 1., "A soft answer turneth away wrath," i. e. it is the 
natural tendency of a mild answer to avert anger. But the effect 
does not always take place, in consequence of the depravity of men. 
So too Prov. xix. 4., " Wealth maketh many friends." 1 Peter iii. 
13., " Who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which 
is good?" The natural effect which a good life will probably pro- 
duce on others is, that they will refrain from hurting the pious man. 
But the opposite is sometimes the case. 

Akin to this is the next observation, that universal or indefinite 
propositions signify no more than what usually happens. Thus we 
read in Prov. xxii. 6. " Train up a child in the way he should 
go ; and when he is old he will not depart from it." Turretin re- 
marks that all propositions which treat of the virtues or vices of 
certain nations, conditions, or ages, are to be referred to this head. 
For example, "the Cretians are alway liars" (Titus i. 12.). The 
general character of the nation is described in such language. Prov. 
xviii. 23., " the rich answereth roughly." 

Again, many things are stated generally which hold good only 
of a certain class of men, or at certain times. Thus, in 2 Tim. iii. 
12., we read, " All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer 
persecution." Here allusion is made to the peculiar circumstances 
of believers in the early period of Christianity. Such was the cha- 
racter of the times, both Jews and heathens being bitterly opposed 
to the Christian religion, that all who were firmly resolved to live 
a life devoted to Christ exposed themselves by that very determina- 
tion to adversity and persecution. But this does not hold good at 
all times. The effects of piety are not always of this nature. 

Still farther, universal or indefinite propositions often signify duty, 
not what constantly takes place. Thus, Prov. xvi. 10., "A divine 
sentence is in the lips of a king ; his mouth transgresseth not in 
judgment," i. e. his mouth should not prevaricate in judgment. 
Similar language occurs in the 13th verse of the same chapter: 
" Righteous lips are the delight of kings." Such should be the case. 
How often is it otherwise ! 4 When the apostle writes to churches, 
and styles them saints, the faithful, sanctified in Christ Jesus, &c, 

1 De Sacrse Scripturae Interpretation, p. 350. ed. Teller. 

2 Entwurf, u. s w., p. 128. 3 Ut supra, p. 351. et seqq. ed. Teller. 
4 See Stuart on the Book of Proverbs, p. 129. 



492 Biblical Interpretation. 

he merely represents their character by profession and obligation. 
They were so by profession, and they ought to be so in reality. 
But some, without doubt, in the societies so addressed were not 
actually such. Their condition in the sight of God was not what 
it ought to have been. Macknight fritters away the force of these 
general and high titles when he says that, " given to whole churches, 
these titles imported nothing more but that the society to which 
they were given was a church of Christ, and that the individuals of 
which that society ivas composed were entitled to all the privileges 
belonging to the visible church and people of God." 1 On the contrary, 
they imply that the churches generally had the character referred to. 
As members of such societies, it was their duty to have it. And 
because it was obligatory, they professed that they possessed it, and 
generally did possess it. A few fell below their profession, and 
were not what they ought to have been. 

Again, many things are delivered generically respecting actions or 
duties, which should be understood only of a certain species of such- 
actions or duties. Thus in Eph. iv. 26. " Be ye angry and sin not " 
must be taken as meaning, " Be angry when occasion requires, but 
sin not." The precept does not prohibit all anger, but only such as 
is improper in respect to cause, nature, and duration. In like man- 
ner, Matt. v. 34., " swear not at all," and James v. 12., " swear not," 
do not forbid the taking of an oath in every case ; for this would be 
inconsistent with other passages where swearing is spoken of with 
approbation and recommended by example. 

3. When a moral precept prohibiting sin is delivered, the opposite 
duty is enjoined ; and when any duty is enjoined, the contrary sin is 
forbidden. Thus negatives include affirmatives and affirmatives nega- 
tives. So when images of things for religious worship are forbidden, 
the spiritual service of the true God is enjoined. In the third com- 
mandment of the decalogue, while all profaning or abusing of God's 
name is forbidden, the holy and reverend use of his name is also 
enjoined. All the commandments are well explained on this prin- 
ciple by the Westminster divines, in the Larger and Shorter Cate- 
chisms. 

4. When a moral precept prohibits any thing absolutely, it prohi- 
bits all that leads to it or is similar in a lower degree. The lower is 
included in the higher. Whatever may be a provocation to the sin 
in ourselves, or involve our assent to it in others, is forbidden. Thus 
the seventh commandment forbids all unclean imaginations, thoughts, 
and affections ; all lascivious conversation ; also wanton songs, pic- 
tures, books, &c. and whatever incentives lead to adultery or forni- 
cation either in ourselves or others. 2 

5. Negatives are always binding, and must be observed per- 
petually, unless some exception to them be either expressly stated or 
implied. Thus the precept, " Lie not one to another " (Col. iii. 9.) 
admits of no exception. In some cases we might suppose that good 
would arise from lying ; but we should never do evil that good may 

1 Macknight's note on 1 John, ii. 29. 

2 See Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy, hook iii. part 3. chapter 2. 



Moral Interpretation of Scripture. 493 

ultimately come from it. Here strong faith in the presence and love 
of God is especially required, that Christians may continue steadfast 
and umnoveable, never swerving from duty by doing what is abso- 
lutely forbidden. 

6. Affirmatives are not always binding, because several duties 
cannot be performed at one and the same time. Thus we cannot be 
doing positive acts of outward charity or kindness to those around us 
at all times. Many things are incumbent on believers, because they 
are enjoined, which they must perform at such times and in such 
modes as appear best to themselves. If they cannot do some things 
which are commanded, they must be all the more diligent in the 
discharge of others which they are able to perform. If they cannot 
visit such as are sick and in prison, they may comfort the fatherless 
and widow in their affliction. If they cannot go to a place where 
the public worship of God is conducted, they may pray with a sick 
friend. Here great prudence and singleness of heart are demanded, 
•that the Christian may avail himself of fitting opportunities to 
do what is best to be done in circumstances as they arise. As he 
is unable to engage in all duties at all times, he must use his highest 
and holiest discretion in undertaking one and another whenever he 
sees it most desirable, and in whatever order he deems most con- 
ducive to the promotion of the divine glory. 

7. When the favour of God is promised to the performance of any 
action, it is implied at the same time that the other duties of religion 
are performed. Thus fasting is spoken of with approbation ; and 
when not done to be seen of men the Lord will reward him who per- 
forms the duty. " But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, 
and wash thy face ; that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto 
thy Father which is in secret ; and thy Father which seeth in secret, 
shall reward thee openly." (Matt. vi. 17, 18.) Fasting is only one 
duty. Others are presupposed, as well as a right state of mind 
towards God, whence it and they proceed. In the 25th chapter of 
Matthew's Gospel, our Lord instances but one species of good works, 
viz., those of charity, for which men will be admitted into the blessed 
kingdom of God hereafter. Other works however are presupposed— 
works of piety for example. The one class accompanies the other, 
because both spring from one state of mind. 

8. Similar to the last observation is another, viz. that when a certain 
state or condition is pronounced blessed, or a promise is annexed to 
it, a proper disposition of heart is involved ; for it is not the charac- 
teristic of Scripture morality to address itself to outward deeds, but 
always to keep in view the springs from which they proceed. It 
deals peculiarly and distinctively with motives. Thus when Luke 
gives as the words of our Saviour, in his sermon on the mount, 
" blessed are ye poor," an ethical subjectivity is presupposed as 
existing in the disciples. The words were intended to comfort the 
disciples, who were poor and of low estate in the world, exposed to 
suffering and persecution. 1 

9. A change of circumstances may change the character of a pre- 

1 Turretin. p. 35S. 



494 Biblical Interpretation. 

cept. Hence opposite things may be mentioned together in matters 
of duty. Thus we read in Prov. xxvi. 4, 5. " Answer not a fool ac- 
cording to his folly," and " Answer a fool according to his folly." The 
reason appended to each injunction accounts for the different conduct 
recommended in different circumstances. One is not to answer a fool 
in a way that accords with his folly, by saying foolish things as he 
does. Or, one is to answer him according to his folly, just as his 
folly deserves, either with reproof or moderation as the case requires. 1 

10. Certain duties are occasionally disapproved or condemned in 
the Scriptures, not because they are wrong in themselves, or that 
they should not be done, but because of the manner and circum- 
stances in which they are entered into. Thus in Prov. vi. 1, 2., 
xi. 15., xx. 16. suretyship itself is not forbidden. But to become 
surety for a stranger rashly and thoughtlessly, or when one has 
nothing to pay the creditor, is condemned. " He that hateth surety- 
ship is sure " is a general maxim of prudence ; but in certain cases of 
benevolence, charity, and justice, it is an important duty to enter 
into the relation. It is wrong to enter into it when it would inter- 
fere with more important and pressing matters which call for per- 
formance. 

11. Sometimes specific rules in the New Testament concerning 
particular acts relate to a state of mind — a prevailing disposition or 
temper which is inculcated — rather than the mere isolated outward 
deeds which are mentioned. They must therefore be regarded as 
the external expression of inward character, selected no doubt with 
a particular view, under the circumstances in which they were ad- 
duced. Thus in Matt. v. 39 — 42. we read as the precepts of the 
Saviour, " But I say unto you, that ye resist not evil : but whosoever 
shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And 
if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him 
have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, 
go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that 
would borrow of thee turn not thou away." In the 39th verse, 
which is set over against a spirit of revenge, for which the law of 
Moses furnished some fuel, the Saviour recommends a yielding spirit 
of self-sacrifice through love of peace. This is exemplified by turn- 
ing the other cheek to him who has smitten the one, an action which may 
be done when circumstances require it, as an index of the state of the 
mind. In the 40th and 41st verses, he enjoins a peace-loving disin- 
terestedness, exemplified by giving up even a more valuable garment 
than the one ivanted by the adversary at law, and taking a longer 

journey than that forced upon one. In the 42nd verse, liberality and 
willingness to help are inculcated, exemplified by giving to him that 
asketh a loan of another. These precepts are of universal obligation 
upon Christians, and must be taken in all their generality. In them 
the Redeemer commands the exercise of certain feelings — the culti- 
vation of certain dispositions. Such dispositions may be exemplified 
in the manner here specified. Circumstances will thoughtfully lead 
to the best method of applying such precepts. The method may 

1 Turn tin, p. 359. 



Mural Interpretation of Scripture. 495 

vary. It may not be that here given as a specimen. But if the 
right disposition exist, the duty is virtually performed, and will un- 
doubtedly be done as Christian prudence and the nature of each case 
may prompt. 

12. Moral discourses abound in paradoxes and antitheses, which 
must be explained and limited by the nature of the subject and the 
context. Many examples occur in the book of Proverbs. The 
beatitudes also furnish instances. 1 

13. It is said by Turretin that hyperboles are very frequent in 
the moral parts of Scripture, as when Christ says (Matt. xix. 21.) 
that it is harder for a rich man to be saved than for a camel to pass 
through a needle's eye. But this was a proverbial expression cur- 
rent at the time in Asia, to imply an impossibility. And his other 
examples are still more inapposite, for they are not hyperboles. Thus 
Matt. v. 39. is not a hyperbole. Neither are Matt. vi. 3. 6. 7. 25., 
vii. L, &c, Philipp. ii. 3., hyperboles, though so given by this 
writer. He errs still more egregiously when he adduces the pre- 
cepts, do all things to the glory of God ; pray without ceasing ; rejoice 
evermore ; to hate father, mother, yea one , s own life ; to renounce self ; 
not to mind or seek, but to despise earthly things; to love enemies, &c. 2 
According to such exegesis, the sublimest precepts of Christianity 
might be reduced to the level of a philosophical morality devised 
by the human mind apart from revelation. Great discrimination 
should be used in assuming hyperboles in the case of moral precepts. 
It is incorrect to affirm that the moral parts of Scripture " abound 
with bold hyperboles." 

14. Moral sentences in the Scriptures are often written in a con- 
densed, terse, pointed, brief manner. In consequence of their com- 
pressed and pointed language, which was intended to make the 
sentiment more impressive, they often demand a degree of modi- 
fication. Strong and figurative diction makes the thought more 
emphatic and forcible. It strikes the reader with greater effect. 
Intensity of affirmation is the form in which thoughts were conveyed 
with strength and efficacy. But the context and common sense will 
help the expositor to assign the right limitation. It is true that 
terse, proverb-like sayings are sometimes obscure from their brevity; 
yet the usual appliances of interpretation will bring out their mean- 
ing. We believe that Turretin has incorrectly put moral sentences 
of this nature into the list of hyperboles. They are strongly and 
pointedly expressed for the purpose of making a deeper impression, 
and, like all sayings of the same kind, must be duly tempered by 
the decisions of a sound judgment. 3 

15. In passages relating to morals, difficulty has sometimes arisen 
from ignorance of the proper idioms of Hebrew and Greek, or the 
right meaning of words. An adequate acquaintance with the lan- 
guages of the Bible is necessary to bring forth the true sense. 
Thus when Christ, referring to Hosea vi. 6., says, " I will have 
mercy and not sacrifice," the negation is not absolute, but relative. 

1 See Turretin, p. 361. - Ibid pp. 363, 364. 

s See Stuart's Commentary on Proverbs, p. 128. ct seqq. 



496 Biblical Interpretation. 

God required mercy or the love of men in preference to ritual ob- 
servances. Deeds of charity are set above all positive institutions 
when the two interfere. Though the negation be absolute inform, 
it is not so in idea. The two things are spoken of comparatively. 
In 1 Cor. x. 24. we read, " Let no man seek his own but every 
man another's." The meaning is not, " Let no man seek his own 
interest only," as if fxovov should be supplied, with Pott and others. 
But the idea is, that none should pursue his own interests in a sel- 
fish spirit. A proper, pure, self-love is not referred to by the apostle, 
nor is it implied. Selfishness is involved in the verb seek, and there- 
fore the precept is absolutely prohibitory. Phil. ii. 4. should be 
similarly explained. In Luke xiv. 26. the Saviour says, " If any 
man come to me, and hate not his father and mother, and wife, and 
children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he can- 
not be my disciple." Here and in similar passages the verb hate 
(pcasco) is used in a milder sense than that of positive hatred, mean- 
ing to think less of, to look upon as of less consequence. A comparison 
is implied between two things ; and the strong terms hate, love, which 
are contrasted, denote no more than to esteem less and prefer. Bretsch- 
neider 1 says that [uasco is used by fislcoaos. In Matt. vi. 25., " take 
no thought for your life, &c." the verb fispi/xvaTs implies an over- 
anxious carefulness. 

With regard to the moral examples of the Bible and their ex- 
planation, we remark that they include actions ascribed to God, to 
Christ, to the apostles, to good and bad men. 

With regard to such actions as are ascribed to God in the Old 
Testament, we must reject the rationalist principle that the writers 
make the Deity speak and act according to the ethical notions of 
their day, or those which they themselves had. 2 This dangerous 
exegetical rule involves a denial of the inspiration of the writers. 

In the actions of Jesus, which are without exception of the purest 
moral nature and tendency, we should distinguish the temporary 
and local from that which is worthy of universal imitation. Thus 
his washing the disciples' feet belongs to the temporary things. So 
also his expulsion from the temple of those that bought and sold ; 
his fasting forty days and nights, &c. 

What we are chiefly to regard is the conduct of men. Here we 
observe, 

1. That things are related in Scripture with disapproval. Thus 
David's numbering the people is spoken of as a sin, and punished 
accordingly. 

2. Many things are recorded without censure. For example, in 
the lives of Abraham and David we read of various actions un- 
doubtedly wrong, such as Abraham's denial of Sarah as his wife, 
and the pretended madness of David. So polygamy was allowed, 
not enjoined under the law. It was permitted to the Jews on ac- 
count of the hardness of their hearts ; but it is now forbidden under 
the gospel. 

3. Some actions under the Old Testament dispensation were done 
1 Lexicon, s. v. 2 See Bauer, Entwurf, u. s. w., § 157. p. 130, 



Examples of Scripture. 497 

because they were expressly commanded. Thus Joshua cut off the 
Canaanites. Abraham was commanded to offer Isaac in sacrifice. 
The divine authority is sufficient to justify these and similar ac- 
tions ; but they are no rule of conduct to others. They are extraor- 
dinary and peculiar, subserving some particular purpose of Jehovah 
at the time they were enjoined. 

4. We must look to the principle or motive whence certain acts 
proceeded, and imitate them so far as the principle is good and sound. 
Elijah out of zeal for the glory of the true God, and not a spirit of 
persecution, mocked the priests of Baal, the idolatrous promoters of 
folly and impiety. 

What then must we say of Old Testament examples ? How far 
should they be imitated, and when should they be avoided ? It is 
not sufficient that actions be recorded in Scripture without condem- 
nation. It is not enough to recommend them for imitation, that 
they be done by good men, without any mark of the divine disap- 
probation attaching to them. Nor is it enough that they be com- 
manded of God once under peculiar circumstances. We must look 
at the state of mind whence each proceeded. If it was done with 
a right motive and for a right end, it approves itself as good and 
worthy of imitation ; if otherwise, it is not to be copied. When the 
person who performed it acted in accordance with the law of God 
which he had, he was justified in it. But it is necessary for us who 
belong to another dispensation to try it by the moral precepts and 
principles of the New Testament. So far as an action or course of 
conduct belonging to a prior economy agrees with the present one, 
and no farther, is it to be copied by Christians. 

5. Under the New Testament, we are to copy the examples of 
good men and of apostles so far as they agree with the eternal prin- 
ciples of morality inculcated in revelation and with the perfect ex- 
ample of Jesus Christ. Sometimes the conduct of inspired men 
illustrates the meaning of ambiguous or obscure precepts, as that 
in Matt. v. 39. is explained and limited by Paul's conduct in Acts 
xxv. 11. 

6. The example of good men described in the New Testament 
helps us to apply the general rules of the Bible to particular cases. 
When we see the precepts exemplified, those precepts are explained 
in an intelligible manner. Thus Paul writes in 1 Cor. ix. 20., " And 
unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews." 
How and how far did he adopt Jewish practices and follow Jewish 
usages ? He took and circumcised Timothy. But he resisted the 
circumcision of Titus. In the former case, he became as a Jew to 
the Jews, because no principle connected with salvation was involved 
in the act. None required it as necessary to salvation. It was 
spontaneous and voluntary. But in the latter case, Juclaising Chris- 
tians insisted on Titus's circumcision in accordance with their doc- 
trine that it was necessary to salvation. We see therefore, that he 
yielded to the Jews as far as possible, where no principle was in- 
volved. In matters indifferent or small he accommodated himself to 
Jewish prepossessions and practices. But the adaptation never went 

VOL. II. K K 



498 Biblical Interpretation. 

beyond the boundary where principle began. In this yielding com- 
pliant spirit for the sake of others' good, all teachers of truth and all 
Christians should imitate the Apostle of the Gentiles. 

That the conduct even of apostles should not be copied in every 
thing, is shown by Peter's behaviour at Antioch, on account of which 
Paul withstood him to the face because he was culpable. 

7. If the thing to which an example refers be of a moral nature, 
we should imitate the conduct of holy men manifestly approved of 
God as far as the reason of it is the same in both cases. But the 
reason of a thing may show that it is appropriated to a certain time 
or locality. Thus the Apostle Paul speaks of the Philippians 
having sent contributions more than once towards the relief of his 
necessities. He had benefited them in spiritual things ; they contri- 
buted of their temporal things to his support and comfort. This 
action is commendable and worthy of all imitation. The reason of 
it continues the same in the case of the Philippian Christians and of 
Christians now. The principle within that prompted such an action 
will ever prompt to similar ones; for the spirit of true believers 
is the same. Grateful love and beneficence will always be theirs. 
When our Lord had washed the disciples' feet on a certain occasion 
he said to them, Ye also ought to wash one another 's feet. It is also 
mentioned as a part of the widow's character that she hath " washed 
the saints' feet, and relieved the afflicted" (1 Tim. v. 10.). Should 
we imitate the practice of the early Christians in this respect? "We 
need not, because the reason does not apply in a country like ours. 
In hot eastern countries after travelling in sandals, washing of 
the feet was very refreshing and all but necessary. To do it to 
another was to show the most tender care for his comfort. But our 
climate is so different, as also the clothing of the feet suited to it, 
that the reason of the thing is wanting. There is no occasion for it. 
Again, it was usual in the East for men in general to express their 
affection by a kiss. The first Christians did so, employing the com- 
mon mode of salutation in a religious manner. The Apostle of the 
Gentiles enjoins the saints to salute one another with a holy kiss. 
Jesus said to Simon, " Thou gavest me no kiss ; but this woman, 
since the time I came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet" (Luke 
vii. 45.). This example is similar to the last. It was a human cus- 
tom applied to a religious use. And where the custom has ceased, 
the thing may be dispensed with. The spirit of the thing remains, 
but the mode of it varies. 1 

8. If the example refers to a positive institution, it is not binding 
in its accidental circumstances. Many things connected with the 
Lord's supper are of this nature. It was originally celebrated with 
unleavened bread, in an upper room, by the disciples in a recum- 
bent posture, in the evening. All these accessories may be dispensed 
with now. 2 Baptism was performed in the New Testament time for 
the most part, if not always, by immersion. But this is no reason 

1 See Fuller's Works, vol. iv. pp. 621, 622. ; and Davidson on the Ecclesiastical Polity 
of the New Testament, p. 26. 2nd edition. 

2 Davidson, ut siqna, p. 26. 



Promises and Threatening s of Scripture. 499 

wny it should be so now. The mode is of no consequence. It may- 
change as ages and climates change. The essential thing is the ap- 
plication of water as the symbol of a professed inward purification. 



CHAP. XIII. 

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROMISES AND THREATENINGS OF 
SCRIPTURE. 

A promise is a declaration of God's will in which he signifies what 
particular good things he will freely bestow, and the evils he will 
remove. A promise differs from a threatening of God inasmuch as 
it refers to future good ; while the latter is a declaration of the 
divine displeasure against sin. It differs from a command inasmuch 
as it is a declaration of God's will concerning mercy to be received ; 
a command concerning duty enjoined. 1 

The interpretation of the promises is to be conducted on the same 
principles as that of all other parts of Scripture. It has nothing 
peculiar in this respect. Besides, many of them may be resolved 
into other heads. Some are predictions ; especially the promises be- 
longing to the Old Testament. Others are precepts also. Many 
might be brought under the head of the moral interpretation of the 
Bible, because they concern duties to be performed. Yet it may be 
useful to consider the subject separately, that it may be more clearly 
apprehended. 

No good classification of the promises can be had. Every one 
hitherto proposed is objectionable and useless. This fact arises from 
the nature of many of them, which harmonises with predictions or 
coincides with precepts. The common one is into absolute and con- 
ditional promises. The former require nothing on the part of the 
creature in order to their fulfilment; the latter are made to depend 
on some state of mind or duty to be performed by the creature. 
They have also been divided into spiritual and temporal promises, 
epithets relating to the nature of the things declared in them. It is 
no change for the better when "Wardlaw would substitute for the 
latter classification the directly and the indirectly spiritual. The 
former he reduces to one — the promise of the Holy Spirit in all the 
variety of his influences. The latter he describes as temporal in 
their nature, but spiritual in their end. 2 We shall arrange our re- 
marks under the following heads. 

1. The expositor should distinguish between promises which are 
universal, applicable to all believers, and such as are particular, be- 
longing to some only. Thus particular promises were made to Noah, 
to Abraham, to Moses, to David, Solomon, Christ, to Paul, &c. So 
we have a special promise made to Peter in Matt. xvi. 18., " Thou 

1 See Spurstowe's The Wells of Salvation opened, p. 10. et seqq. London, 1659. 

2 See Introductory Essay to Clarke's Collection of the Promises, p. 39. et seqq. 

B. K 2 



500 Biblical Interpretation. 

art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates 
of hell shall not prevail against it." Certain promises also belong to 
a class, as to the apostles ; for example, Matt, xviii. 18, 19., " What- 
soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven ; and whatso- 
ever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say 
unto you that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any 
thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father 
who is in heaven." But the covenant of grace is the universal pro- 
mise, and therefore the ground of faith. 1 

2. A particular promise may be a branch of a universal promise. 
Hence when the case and reason of the promise prove the meaning 
of it to belong to others as well as to those whom it was first made 
to, or to all that are in similar circumstances, it may be applied 
beyond the original party. So the promise made to Joshua is ap- 
plied by the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, " I will never 
leave thee nor forsake thee" (Heb. xiii. 5.), to the Jewish Christians 
of Palestine not long before the destruction of Jerusalem. 2 

3. To the last-mentioned head may be referred the promises made 
to the Israelites. These were temporal and earthly. The increase 
of their seed, long life in the land of Canaan, worldly prosperity, 
were promised to them agreeably to the ceremonial services which 
suited their minds. Viewed in the light of the Christian dispensa- 
tion, these temporal things which belong to the ancient economy 
have a spiritual aspect, or may be translated into other and spiritual 
language of a higher import. Thus the writer of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews speaks of the rest in Canaan being more than a per- 
manent settlement in the land of promise. He regards it as a shadow 
of the heavenly rest. So we viewing these earthly things as symbo- 
lising spiritual objects, may apply them under our present economy 
to true Christians. Long life in the goodly land of Palestine will 
then denote eternal life in the world of bliss. 

4. Some promises are absolute, others conditional. Thus the pro- 
mise to the patriarchs that the Messiah should come was absolute. 
The advent of the Saviour was not dependent on any thing done by 
mankind. So the promise made to Noah that the world should not 
again be overwhelmed with a flood was absolute. Of the same 
nature was that relating to the call of the Gentiles. By far the 
greater number of the promises, however, are conditional. All such 
as concern ordinary believers are so. In their performance they are 
conditional. They depend on duties clone by us. He who is made 
partaker of what is contained in them must have an antecedent 
qualification and fitness without which they cannot be fulfilled. 
Thus pardon of sin is promised to him who repents; justification 
to him that believes ; increase in grace to him that improves grace 
received ; a crown of life to him that perseveres. In performing the 
condition of a promise, there is nothing meritorious in man. It 
is not the cause of the promise being fulfilled. Its true nature is 
such as only to suspend the benefit. The non-performance of the 

1 See Baxter's Life of Faith, Practical Works in 23 volumes, vol. xii. p. 245. 
8 Ibid. p. 246. 






Promises and Threatenings of Scripture. 501 

condition is inseparably connected with the non-performance of the 
promise. Thus in 2 Cor. vi. 17, 18. we read, " Wherefore come out 
from among them and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not 
the unclean thing ; and I will receive you and will be a father unto 
you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord 
Almighty." Here the promise made is the being a Father — paternal 
love and regard. The duty of the persons to whom it is addressed 
is specified — it is to renounce the association of the sinful and un- 
clean. The menace implied is, that if they do not separate from the 
society of the immoral and vile, God will not admit them into his 
favour but leave them to perish. 

5. It follows from the preceding that as far as one fulfils the con- 
ditions, he may boldly apply the promises to himself. If he is certain 
that he repents and believes, he may conclude that he has a sure 
interest in the benefit of a promise which is common. Pardon and 
glory belong to him who believes. But then he must persevere in 
the path of duty. He must continue to be fervent in spirit. He 
must be faithful unto death. His duties are not done at once ; they 
are always obligatory in the present life. 

6. The promises are not made to mere sincerity. The character 
to which they refer and on which their performance is suspended, is 
more than one consisting of sincerity alone. Repentance, faith, 
fervour, fidelity, watchfulness against sin, prayer, effort to subdue 
evil propensities, are the qualifications demanded. 1 

7. When one applies the promises to himself who does not fulfil the 
conditions to which their performance is annexed, he is guilty of pre- 
sumption. He expects the benefit of that which does not belong to 
the character he bears. The impenitent should not and cannot in 
reality appropriate the blessing promised only to the penitent. One 
who does not forgive others their trespasses against him, cannot hope 
to receive forgiveness from God for his own sins. 

8. God sometimes promises a thing when he does not promise the 
manner in which he will perform it. The manner is varied, according 
to the good pleasure of Him who works all in all, and the circum- 
stances of his believing servants. 2 

9. God does not always or generally indicate the time of perform- 
ance when he gives a promise. 3 The times and the seasons he hath 
put in his own power. The promises being of necessity general in 
their nature, the set time for their accomplishment to particular indi- 
viduals varies according to the state and necessities of the individuals 
themselves. The same time would not be suitable to all. Hence it 
is wisely concealed, that each may wait, watch, and be patient. 
Christ has promised to come again and take his people to himself, 
that where he is there they may be also (John xiv. 3.) ; but the 
time is unknown. It is promised that God will deliver the righteous 
out of his afflictions (Psalm xxxiv. 19.) ; but he has not revealed the 
set time of doing so. 

10. When a thing is promised in case of obedience, the contrary is 
threatened by implication, in case of disobedience ; and inversely, 

1 Baxter's Life of Faith, p. 244. 2 Ibid. p. 242. 3 Ibid. p. 242. 



502 Biblical Interpretation. 

when a thing is threatened in case of disobedience, a promise of the 
contrary is implied on condition of obedience. This is exemplified in 
the fifteenth Psalm, where the divine protection is promised on the 
condition of moral purity. It is implied that God will not protect 
but cast off and punish the impure and sinful. They are virtually 
threatened with the opposite of that which shall be accorded to the 
holy. 

11. God has suited his promises to his precepts. There is an inti- 
mate connection between them. Accordingly men are sometimes 
commanded to do what God declares he will do for them or in them. 
Some things are enjoined in one passage which are promised in an- 
other. Thus, " And I will cleanse them from all their iniquity" 
(Jer. xxxiii. 8.). " Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and purify your 
hearts, ye double-minded" (James iv. 8.). The precept teaches the 
sinner what his duty is, and calls upon him to use his utmost endea- 
vours to perform it ; while at the same time the promise implies the 
need of divine assistance, and the certainty of obtaining it in 
the manner indicated. Man makes the effort sincerely and honestly 
to do what is enjoined ; and in his so striving he receives grace 
enabling him to discharge the duty. In all such cases, where there 
is a precept stating what man's duty is, there is no danger of his 
mistaking promises for precepts, even though it be asserted that God 
will do Himself what his creatures are called upon to perform. But 
there are cases in which the divine promises are converted into pre- 
cepts, without a warrant. If there be not an express precept to show 
what man's duty is, and what means he must use before he attempt 
his own deliverance, then the promise of God to free his servants 
from trouble or persecution must be left to himself to accomplish. 
They have simply to look to God for its fulfilment ; not to set about 
the fulfilment of it by such means as they may think right in their 
own wisdom. 

12. In applying the promises, the order and method of them should 
be carefully observed, else they may be inverted. They are a full 
storehouse of all blessings, both those which relate to the present life 
and the life to come. Here we have a pattern as well as a precept 
for our guide. The former is — our Lord's prayer, in which spiritual 
things are set far above our daily bread. The latter is contained 
in his Sermon on the Mount, where Christ says, " Seek ye first the 
kingdom of God and his righteousness ; and all these things shall be 
added unto you." Hence the promises are to be employed in prayer 
and other duties, primarily for holiness, and secondarily for outward 
comforts. Spiritual mercies are of greater importance than temporal 
ones. Hence the promises relating to the former should be chiefly 
regarded. 1 

13. There is a sacred concatenation between one promise and another 
which should not be broken. The blessings of the several promises 
are linked together and must not be severed. Thus the promises of 
pardon and repentance are inseparably joined. Those relating to 
grace and glory, holiness and happiness, are also connected. 2 

1 See Spurstowe, p. 75. et seqq. 2 Ibid. p. 73. et seqq. 



Passages apparently contradictory. 503 

14. In expounding and applying the promises it is necessary to 
be well acquainted with the analogy of faith, since their due limita- 
tion largely depends on it. None who does not take a comprehen- 
sive view of Christian doctrine and duty can explain them in their 
coherence, order, and right proportions. The particular context of 
a passage in which a promise stands will do much to elucidate it ; 
the general scope will serve to make its meaning more intelligible ; 
but a wider survey alone will suffice to set forth each particular 
promise in the extent and spirituality belonging to it as coming 
from the God of grace. Indeed, it may be said that the essence of 
divine Revelation consists of a few promises indissolubly linked 
together. The gospel contains the great promise of man's renewal 
and restoration to the complacent favour of God. This is its sub- 
stance. In it a God of love promises salvation to man. The 
Jewish church under a former dispensation was nourished and 
strengthened by promises. And although the Christian church is 
placed in more favourable circumstances, it is chiefly sustained by 
the same means. The church's life is maintained by faith in the 
expression of God's immutable will. 



CHAP. XIV. 



ON THE INTERPRETATION AND MEANS OF HARMONISING PASSAGES OF 
SCRIPTURE WHICH APPEAR TO BE CONTRADICTORY. 

MUCH has been said against the Bible on the ground of its contra- 
dictions, and much has been alleged falsely. Hasty authors, writing 
for a purpose, and wishing to damage the credit of divine revelation, 
have uttered many things in relation to this subject which cannot 
stand a moment's investigation. They have destroyed their own 
credit for sincerity and truth-seeking rather than the Book they 
assailed. The sacred writers were guided by the Spirit of God, 
and therefore they cannot materially oppose one another. But here 
the friends of Revelation themselves do not entirely agree in opinion. 
Accordino- to their ideas of the extent to which the original authors 
were inspired will be the view taken of the contradictions of Scrip- 
ture with itself. Such as maintain that each and every part of the 
Bible is alike inspired — that in all matters which the writers speak 
of they were under an infallible influence — will necessarily believe 
that there cannot be the least contradiction between the parts of 
Scripture. They will hold that in matters collateral to religious 
truth, such as points of history, geography, natural science, chro- 
nolooy, philosophy, &c, the writers were infallible in all they ex- 
pressed — that their sentiments were always and everywhere correct. 
Such ao-ain as maintain that the writers were infallibly inspired 
in regard to all religious and moral truth only — that when they 
wrote divine communications bearing directly on the highest in- 
terests of men, they were under a peculiarly divine leading, but 



504 Biblical Interpretation. 

that on matters of another kind, such as chronology and geography, 
they were left much more to their own ideas — will allow that there 
may be contradiction on matters of history and science without 
detriment to the correctness of the writers on religious and moral 
subjects. 

After an extended and careful survey of all the phenomena, Ave 
incline to the latter view. We believe that no contradiction can 
exist between the writers when treating of religious and moral truth. 
Whatever they inculcate respecting doctrine and duty is infallibly 
correct. So far they were under a high illumination of the Spirit, 
and could not err ; and as the Spirit cannot contradict himself", all 
the writers must substantially agree. It is true that apparent dis- 
crepancies may be found among them even here ; but they can 
only be apparent. A careful examination of their alleged opposition 
will show that it is not real. 

While thus maintaining the harmony of all such passages as 
belong to and constitute the word of God, we doubt if places of 
another kind can be everywhere reconciled. In regard to dates, 
numbers, names; historical, archaeological, geographical, and scientific 
points ; we are inclined to believe that they were not infallible, and 
may have erred. These matters do not affect the essence of a divine 
revelation. They are accessory and incidental, not essential. 

But though assuming as incontrovertible that there are some 
phenomena of the latter kind in Scripture which cannot be recon- 
ciled by the utmost ingenuity of man, it is true notwithstanding that 
their number has been greatly exaggerated. They have been un- 
duly multiplied. They should not be admitted except after the 
most impartial and rigid examination. For ourselves, we are dis- 
posed to allow of none that cannot he proved. We shall try as far 
as we are able to harmonise these passages. It is only in a des- 
perate case that we shall admit real opposition. When all ap- 
pliances fail to throw light upon them, we may then, and not till 
then, allow their existence. There are many seeming contradictions ; 
few real ones. Let us endeavour to reconcile those which are most 
apparent and plausible. 

Here it is difficult, if not impossible, to classify seeming contra- 
dictions. Gerard divides seeming contradictions into four sections, 
viz. seeming contradictions in quotations, in historical passages, 
between predictions and their accomplishment, in points of doctrine. 
In two succeeding chapters he treats of seeming contradictions to 
reason and morality, and seeming contradictions to history and 
matters of fact; subjoining another chapter under the title of com- 
plicated difficulties. 1 But this division is awkward. In regard to 
seeming contradictions to reason and morality, they belong to the 
subject of the evidences of divine revelation. His seeming contra- 
dictions to history and matters of fact also belong mainly to the 
same head, not to Hermeneutics. Biblical interpretation has to 
do with the reconciling of Scripture with itself, harmonising the 

1 Institutes of Biblical Criticism, p. 417. et seqq. 



Passages apparently contradictor}/. 505 

various writers with one another. The simplest method is to take 
the passages in order, as they lie in the text, without reducing them 
to general heads or chapters. We shall consider, first, discrepancies 
between the Old Testament writers ; secondly, discrepancies between 
the New Testament authors ; and thirdly between the Old and New 
Testament writers. 

The following plain principles will enable the careful reader to 
clear away many difficulties and seeming contradictions from the 
sacred text. 

1. The state of the text both of the Old and New Testaments 
should be looked at first of all. It may be that corruption has crept 
into it in some places, and created discrepancies. We know that 
this has actually happened, especially in the Old Testament. A 
comparison of the historical books, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra, 
Nehemiah, will verify the truth of our assertion. 

2. The inspired writers sometimes drew their narratives from 
different sources. Thus one may have used a written document, 
while another followed tradition in describing the same thing. 
Or, one may have been an eyewitness of what he relates, while 
another heard it. The same writer may have used different docu- 
ments which did not exactly agree in every particular. So with the 
Elohim and Jehovah documents incorporated in the book of Genesis. 
Two different writers again may have taken different documents, 
as Matthew and Luke did in the case of the genealogical registers 
inserted in their Gospels. The compilers of Kings and Chronicles 
also had somewhat different documents in writing those books. 

3. The different ages in which the sacred writers lived will some- 
times give rise to a kind of discrepancy. The doctrine of salvation 
through Christ was unfolded gradually, becoming clearer and more 
distinct as the fulness of the time when the Son of God was about 
to appear drew near. The writers were enlightened according to 
the times at which they lived. Moses, for example, had not such 
a vision of the Messiah's person in Iris humiliation and sufferings as 
Isaiah had. The Holy Spirit did not illuminate the understandings 
of the authors who wrote the Old Testament books alike. As they 
lived in different periods of the world's history, so did they partake, 
in a measure, of the general characteristics of their own times. 

4. It is substantially the same observation with the last, that the 
different writers possessed different degrees of knowledge respecting 
spiritual truths. This is obvious when we compare together the Old 
Testament authors and the apostles. And it is also visible in the case 
of the Old Testament authors themselves. Their knowledge was 
adapted in a great degree to the times they belonged to. On the 
part of the Deity, who revealed Himself by them, this was a wise 
condescension to the capacities of those instructed. There is no 
doubt that the religion of the ancient economy received a strong 
tinge from the civil and religious customs, the domestic or private 
institutes, of the Jews. The rewards and punishments insisted on 
in the Old Testament are different from those set before the godly 
in the New. Indeed the genius of the Mosaic institutions was 



\ 



506 Biblical Interpretation. 

outward and slavish. It breathed the spirit of bondage. It was 
ceremonial, ritual, fleshly. But the New Testament is eminently' 
a spiritual dispensation, dealing with the springs of action and set- 
ting forth the great principle of love as the animating motive. Its 
rewards and punishments are not of a temporal and earthly kind, 
but spiritual and abiding. 

If the statement now made be correct, the extent of the writers' 
inspiration was not alike. The actual phenomena prove thus much. 
Some were enabled to see farther and deeper than others. Who, 
for example, would compare in this respect Isaiah with Jonah ? Or 
who would compare him who wrote " Happy shall he be that taketh 
and dasheth thy little ones against the stones," with the author of 
this, "Yea, I have delivered him that without cause is my enemy"? 
Who would compare the writer of, " Destroy thou them, O God ! " 
with the spirit of him who says, " I pray God it may not be laid to 
their charge"? David and others in the Psalms uttered impreca- 
tions against their enemies : the New Testament writers breathed 
another spirit and inciilcated other precepts. In the Mosaic system 
the law of revenge was very severe, Christianity is characterised 
by a widely different spirit. 

5. It is necessary to examine whether the same topic be treated 
or the same event described in two places apparently repugnant. A 
superficial and hasty reader may mistake similarity for sameness. 
He may indentify similar, but different things. Thus the two calls 
of Abraham, one from Ur of the Chaldees, noticed by Stephen, the 
other from Charran, mentioned in Genesis, have been identified by 
our translators. The former is unnoticed in the Old Testament, 
though it is implied in several expressions. 

6. Every doctrine or principle is not fully revealed or described 
in every place. One part of a subject is treated at one time, and 
another at another. One aspect of it stands forth prominent in one 
writer, another in another. Sometimes it is stated absolutely, again 
relatively, &c. Hence all the passages which speak of the same 
thing should be put together and set in their relative position, that 
a comprehensive view may be gained. The doctrine of justification, 
as treated by Paul and James, is an example. Neither gives a 
complete description of it. Both should be taken together, along 
with other incidental notices of the same doctrine in the other sacred 
writers. 

7. The different designs which the writers had in view will lead 
to a corresponding selection of circumstances. The very same au- 
thor may notice particulars on one occasion, which he omits else- 
where. Hence an interpreter should attend to the object aimed at 
— the drift or scope of a discourse or history. This is strikingly 
exemplified in the books of the Chronicles as compared with the 
Kings. 

8. Variations are not contradictions. This obvious fact has been 
frequently misapprehended. One historian may relate what is 
omitted by another in recording the same event; or, in narrating 
the same fact, one may notice circumstances which the other passes 



Passages apparently contradictory. 507 

by, without any contradiction. Ammon, in his notes to Ernesti, 
has frequently erred from not perceiving this plain principle. 

9. The order of time is often neglected by the sacred writers. 
An occurrence is sometimes related after another which happened 
before it. Thus a biography may be concluded without the inser- 
tion of contemporaneous events in their proper order of time, lest 
they should interrupt the discourse. Again, events are occasionally 
anticipated. The exact order of time is frequently hidden from 
the reader, because the writers did not observe it. The first three 
Gospels contain examples of these particulars. 

10. Apparent discrepancies in chronology may arise from the fact 
that the same period is variously dated by the historians. 

In this manner some reconcile the time stated in Gen. xv. 3. and 
Exod. xii. 40, 41., supposing that the 400 years of the first should be 
calculated from the birth of Isaac; the 430 years from his leaving 
Ur of the Chaldees. But the solution is doubtful. 

11. A definite number is frequently put for an indefinite. Thus 
Jacob says of Laban his father-in-law, " He has changed my wages 
ten times," that is, often or repeatedly. And when a whole number 
and a part are both to be expressed, the fraction is often omitted and 
the whole number placed for both, especially where the fraction is 
small in comparison with the whole number. 

12. The difference of Jewish modes of computation and ours 
should be carefully noted, else descrepancies may appear. On the 
other hand, modern computation of time should not be assumed 
without reason for the purpose of removing discrepancies, as it is by 
Townson, who to make the sixth hour agree with Mark's third, sup- 
poses the Apostle John not to compute in the Jewish but in the 
modern method, at xix. 14. 

13. The same places had different names at different times. Even 
at the same time different appellations belonged to one and the same 
locality. Thus in Gen. xxxi. 47., the name of the heap of stones is 
called by Laban Jegar-sahadutha but by Jacob Galeed ; the former 
being Aramaean, the latter Hebrew. Laban also called it Mizpah. 
In Judg. xi. 29., it is Mizpeh of Gilead. In Deut. iii. 9., Hermon is 
said to be called Sirion by the Sidonians but Shenir by the Amorites. 
In Deut. iv. 48. it is called Sion. But in 1 Chron. v. 23., Canticles 
iv. 8., Shenir is distinguished from Hermon. Kirjath-jearim (town 
of the woods) is also called Kirjath-Baalah or Baal (Josh. xv. 9. 60., 
1 Chron. xiii. 6.). Egypt is called Ham (Psal. lxxviii. 51.), and the 
land of Ham (Psal. cv. 23.). Beth-meon (Jer. xlviii. 23.) is called 
Beth-baal-meon (Josh. xiii. 17.). Jerusalem is called Ariel (Isa. 
xxix. 1.), lion of God. Egypt is styled Rahab (Isa. li. 9., Psal. 
lxxxvii. 4., lxxxix. 10.). Babylon is called Sheshach (Jer. xxv. 26.). 1 

14. The same individuals had different names, one being employed 
by one writer and another by another, or both being used by the same. 
Thus in comparing Gen. xxxvi. 2. with xxvi. 34., we find the 
daughter of Elon is called Bashemath and Adah; and Ishmael's 

1 Glassii Philolog. Sacr. ed. Dathe, p. 645. et seqq. 



508 



Biblical Interpretation. 



daughter Mahalath and Bashemath. Aholibamah and Judith are 
also appellations of the same woman. The father of the last is 
sometimes called Beeri the Hittite, sometimes Ana the Horite. 
How these differences are to be accounted for is not easy to discover. 
We may refer to Tuch and Knobel on Genesis. In 1 Chron. iii. 1. 
Daniel is Chileab (2 Sam. iii. 3.). In 2 Chron. xxii. 6., Azariah is 
Ahaziah the son of Jehoram (2 Kings viii. 29.). He is the same also 
as Jehoahaz (2 Chron. xxi. 17.). Jehoahaz (2 Kings xxiii. 30.) is 
called Shallum (Jer. xxii. 11.), i, e. he was a second Shallum because 
he reigned so short a time (comp. 2 Kings xv. 13.). Abiel (1 Sam. 
ix. 1.) is Ner (1 Chron. ix. 39.) ; Ishui (1 Sam. xiv. 49.) is Abi- 
nadab (1. Chron. ix. 39. and 1 Sam. xxxi. 2.). In 2 Chron. xi. 20. 
Maachah (so also 1 Kings xv. 2.), is called Michaiah (2 Chron. xiii. 
2.). Daughters in 2 Chron. xi. 20. mean grand-daughters. Azariah 
the son of Oded (2 Chron. xv. 1.) is named Oded (2 Chron. xv. 8.). 
There is some mistake in one or other of the verses. Azariah 
(1 Chron. iii. 12., 2 Kings xiv. 21., xv. 1.) is called Uzziah (2 Kings 
xv. 13. 30. 32. 34.). Jethro (Exod. iii. 1.) is also called Hobab 
(Num. x. 29., Judg. iv. 11.). The same also appears as Raguel or 
Reuel (Exod. ii. 18. &c). But the word there may mean grand- 
father as well as father, as Abenezra and Rosenmuller think. This 
is favoured by Num. x. 29., where Hobab is called the son of 
Raguel. Other opinions may be seen in Winer under the article 
Reguel. The attentive reader of the historical books belonging to the 
Old Testament will find on comparison that the same person often 
appears under different names. But there are many errors in these 
appellations. Similar examples of the same persons having different 
names occur in the New Testament. Thus Nathanael is also 
Bartholomew; Thomas, Didymus; Lebbeus or Thaddeus is Judas 
(the son) of James; Matthew is also Levi; Saul, Paul. 1 

15. The orthography of places and persons is not uniform. And it 
is made even less uniform than in the original text by our English 
translators. Kennicott gives the following list of the same names with 
different orthography in the Hebrew Bible. Most of the differences 
arise from mistakes made by transcribers and others. 



Gen. iv. 18. Mehujael 
x. 3. Ripath 
x. 4. Tarshish 
Dodanim 
x. 23. Mash. - 
x. 28. Obal. - 
xxxii. 30. Peniel - 
xxxvi. 11. Zepho - 
xxxvi. 23. Shepho 
xxxvi. 39. Pau 
xxxvi. 40. Alvah 
xlvi. 10. Jemuel 
Jachin 

Zohar - 

xlvi. 11. Gershon 



Gen. iv. 18. Mehijael. 
1 Chron. i. 6. Diphath. 

i. 7. Tarshishan. 

Rodanim. 
i. 17. Meshech. 
i. 22. Ebal. 
Gen. xxxii. 31. Penuel. 
1 Chron. i. 36. Zephi. 
i. 40. Shephi. 
i. 50. Pai. 
i. 51. Aliah. 
Numb. xxvi. 12. Nemuel. 
1 Chron. iv. 24. Jarib. 

{Numb. xxvi. 13. "1 „ , 
1 Chron. iv. 24. j Zerah ' 
1 Chron. vi. 16. Gershom. 



1 Glassii Philolog. Sacr. ed. Dathe, p. 735. et seqq. 



Passages apparently contradictory. 509 

Gen. xlvi. 13. Job ... Numb. xxvi. 24. Jashub. 

xlvi. 16. Ezbon - - - xxvi. 16. Ozni. 

xlvi. 21. Huppim 1 Chron. viii. 5. Huram. 
Ard ... viii. 3. Addar. 

xlvi. 23. Hushim - - Numb. xxvi. 42. Sb.ub.am. 

Exodus iv. 18. Jether ... Exod. ii. 1. Jethro. 

Numbers i. 14. Deuel - Numb. ii. 14. Eeuel. 

Deut. xxxii. 44. Hoshea - - Deut. xxxiv. 9. Joshua. 

16. The same action or effect may be ascribed to different persons 
or causes in different texts. Both may have contributed to the same 
effect in different ways ; or it may amount to the same thing 
whether it be assigned to the one or the other. Thus it is said of 
God that he hardeneth the heart ; and again, that men harden their 
own hearts. In such a case it amounts to the same thing whether 
the one expression or the other be employed, though we cannot 
solve the difficulties connected with the fact. The Scriptures assert 
that the control of the Almighty over all the moral conduct of his 
creatures is absolute and entire ; so absolute and entire that if he 
deems it expedient to exhibit to the universe a spectacle of sin and 
its consequences he can do so, in the course of his righteous admi- 
nistration, while yet the moral responsibility of the sin rests solely 
with the person who commits it. 

17. What was spoken may be related in different terms by dif- 
ferent writers. In this case they give the ideas, not the precise 
words. Or, they may give different parts of the same discourse ; or 
both these may be combined. This is exemplified in the twofold 
form of the Sermon on the Mount, which appears in the Gospels ac- 
cording to Matthew and Luke. 

18. Occasionally general terms are employed, where others would 
be more appropriate, if minute accuracy were required. A fact may 
be related in a general way by one historian which another may de- 
scribe particularly. Thus Mark says that the thieves who were 
crucified with Jesus reviled him, though we know from Luke that 
this was true in fact only of one of them (Mark xv. 32. and Luke 
xxiii. 39—41.). 

19. Sometimes the speaker is silently and suddenly changed. 
The sentiments of an objector therefore may justly apj)ear to be at 
variance with a neighbouring statement. Of course there may be a 
real contradiction in such a case. Or, the same person may speak in 
a different capacity, uttering different sentiments. Thus in the first 
part of the 39th Psalm, the writer describes his feelings and conduct 
at a former period (1 — 6.); in the second, what he then felt and be- 
lieved respecting God's providential dealings. The first part there- 
fore is not an expression of pious feeling, but an acknowledgment of 
error. 

Gen. i. 8, 9, 10. "I According to the former passage God made 

„ ii. 4. J the firmament on the second day and the 

earth on the third. But according to the latter, the Lord God is 

represented as making the heavens (firmament) and the earth on a 

single day. If the word day be used in both places for the same 



510 Biblical Interpretation. 

space of time, there is a real discrepancy. But this is an unnecessary 
supposition. In the first chapter we look upon the clays as periods 
of twenty-four hours. In the second chapter (fourth verse), the 
word stands for time generally, including an indefinite period, as 
in Num. iii. 1. ; Isa. xi. 16. 

Gen. i. 20. \ Here the opposition is supposed to lie in the cir- 
„ ii. 19. J cumstance that the former place asserts the fowl to 
have been produced from the waters, the latter from the ground. But 
the former says nothing of the element whence the fowl were taken. 
God said " let fowl fly," as it is in the margin of the English Bible, 
not " and fowl that may fly." 

Gen. i. 27. "I Though the former passage states that man had 
„ ii. 5. J been already created, yet it is affirmed in the latter 
that there was not a man to till the ground. In the second chapter, 
a second history of creation is given. Yet chap. i. 1 — ii. 3., and ii. 
4 — 25. are consistent. They belong to different ancient documents 
employed by the writer of Genesis. The former belongs to the 
Elohim-document, the latter to the Jehovah-document. 

Gen. vi. 19, 20. 1 In the former place general directions are 
„ vii. 2, 3. J given to Noah to take with him into the ark 
pairs of animals of every kind. In the latter, the number of pairs is 
specified and limited to seven pairs of clean beasts with two pairs of 
unclean, as also corresponding numbers of pairs of fowl clean and un- 
clean. In vii. 8, 9. 15., where the execution of the command is 
related, the historian, mentions pairs generally, without specifying 
the precise number. Thus there is no discrepancy. 

Gen. vii. 12. 1 Here the latter place states generally what the 
„ vii. 17. J other specifies more exactly. The one is more 
definite than the other. This manner of speaking and writing is 
usual in all languages. The LXX. and many copies of the Vulgate 
improperly supply " and forty nights" in the latter passage, which is 
a mere correction. 

Gen. vi. 6. 1 Repentance can only be ascribed to Deity meta- 

1 Sam. xv. 29. J phorically. The word is differently employed in the 
two places. In the former it means such a change in God's method of 
dealing with men as would indicate on the part of men a change of 
purpose. In the latter it denotes a real change of mind and counsel, 
which is impossible with God. Literal repentance cannot be pre- 
dicated of an infinite, omniscient being. 

Gen. vii. 24. \ In the one passage the waters are said to have been 

„ viii. 3. J strong on the earth for an hundred and fifty days ; 

in the other it is affirmed that they left the earth gradually and were 

abated at the end of the hundred and fifty days. After the hundred 

and fifty days had elapsed they abated. 

Gen. xi. 26. ~j According to Gen. xii. 4. Abram was 75 years old 

„ xi. 32. J- when he left Haran. His father Terah was 70 

„ xii. 4. J when Abraham was born. But Terah died in 

Haran. Hence he was at his death 145, i. e. 70 + 75. But Gen. xi. 

32. says he died at the age of 205, not 145. Hence some think that 



Passages apparently contradictory. 51] 

Abraham was Terah's youngest son, not the eldest. If so, Abraham's 
birth did not take place in the 70th year of Terah, as has been infer- 
red from xi. 26. That was the date of Haran's birth. If Abraham 
were the youngest son of Terah he was born in his father's 130th 
year, to which add 75, making 205 according to Gen. xi. 32. But 
there are serious objections to this hypothesis. It is certainly the 
most probable on all accounts that Abraham was the eldest son. 

The Samaritan has 145 in xi. 32. instead of the Hebrew, but this 
is a correction. 

It is better to reconcile the discrepancy by supposing that Abram 
left Haran before his father died. This is clearly implied in Gen. 
xii. 4. And as his final removal did not take place till the death of 
his father, if the account in Acts vii. 4. be correct, then he must 
occasionally have returned to Haran. We must confess, however, 
that this is doubtful. Stephen was not inspired. The difficulty can 
be fairly met only by him who recognises the document-hypothesis 
as founded in truth. The commencement of the 12th chapter, and 
the 11th, were taken from different documents. The former in its 
present form proceeded from the Jehovist, the latter from the Elohist. 

Gen. xv. 13. 1 These texts are best harmonised by the principle 

Ex. xii. 40. J that a round number is often employed when an 
odd number would be more exact. Bunsen thinks that the number 
400 is to be viewed as a prophetic mode of expressing a long period, 
and that the determinate number four is but a conventional form, 
borrowed from the genealogical registers. He also regards 430 as 
conventional and unhistorical. 1 

Gen. xxix. 35. "I The former place says that Leah left off bearing, 
„ xxx. 17. J but not altogether. The latter shows that it was 
only for a time. 

Gen. xxxii. 30. 1 There is a mystery about the transaction related 

Ex. xxxiii. 20. J in Gen. xxxii. 30. which cannot be fathomed. 
Jacob thought that he had immediate intercourse with the Divine 
Being. Those who wish to see the discordant views taken of the 
transaction must have recourse to Knobel on Genesis, and to Um- 
breit's Essay in the Studien und Kritiken for 1848. A historical 
fact lies at the basis of the narration. In Ex. xxxiii. 20. the face of 
God denotes the glory and majesty of Jehovah in full brightness, 
which no mortal can behold without being overpowered. The divine 
effulgence of Deity must overwhelm a frail creature of dust. 

Gen. xxxviii. \ The chronology of Gen. xxxviii. presents con- 

„ xlvi. 12., &c. J siderable discrepancies compared with the pre- 
ceding and following accounts. From the sale of Joseph till Jacob's 
descent into Egypt was about 23 years (xxxvii. 2., xii. 46., and to 
these 13 years add the 7 of plenty and 2 of famine which had passed, 
xlv. 1 1 .), which is too short a period for Judah to have three sons by 
the same mother, to marry them, and to have twins by his daughter- 
in-law, cue of whom, Pharez, when he went to Egypt, had also two 

1 See Egypt, vol. i. p. 171. et seqq. 



512 Biblical Interpretation. 

(xlvi. 12.). On the otter hand, if Judah's incest with Tamar hap- 
pened about the time of Joseph's sale, this will carry up the circum- 
stance mentioned in xxxviii. 1, 2. to the time when Jacob was in 
Mesopotamia. For if we allow 14 years, which is little enough, for 
Shelah to be grown up (xxxviii. 11. 14.) and 3 for the births of 
himself and two brothers (3 — 5.), this will make about 17 between 
the conduct of Juclah mentioned in ver. 16., &c. and his associating 
with Shuah (ver. 2.). And as Joseph was seventeen when he was 
sold (xxxvii. 2.) the affair of xxxviii. 1, 2. will be about contem- 
poraneous with the birth of Joseph (xxx. 24.), i. e., 14 years after 
Jacob had come to Mesopotamia, supposing his residence there to 
have been only 20 years. If now Jacob did not marry liachel 
until he had served 7 years (xxix. 20, 21.), as not less than 3-^ 
elapsed between his marriage and the birth of his fourth son Judah 
(ver. 31 — 35.), only the same space of time will remain between his 
birth and Joseph's ; in other words, between his birth and the affair 
with Shuah mentioned in xxxviii. 1., which cannot be correct. 1 

The true solution is that chapter xxxviii. belongs to the Je- 
hovist-document or writer, not to the Elohim-document which 
forms the basis of the book of Genesis. It can scarcely be expected 
that the pieces belonging to these two documents should chronologi- 
cally harmonise with one another. 

Another solution is given by Hengstenberg, to which we can only 
refer. 2 A third, which is still less sufficient, is found in Turner 3 , 
who has shown the weakness of several considerations urged by 
Hengstenberg. 

Gen. xlvii. 11. 1 The territory of Raamses is spoken of in the 

Exod. i. 11. J former place, but in the latter the city of the 
same name. The country took its name from the chief city in it. 
It is probable that Raamses and Goshen were the same. 

Gen. xlviii. 8. 1 Jacob's eyes were dim. He beheld, but could 
„ xlviii. 10. J not clearly see. He distinguished objects with 
imperfect vision. 

Exod. iii. 2. 1 In the former, the angel of Jehovah is said to have 
and iii. 4. J appeared to Moses ; in the latter, Jehovah himself. 
In the New Testament the Apostle John writes, " No man hath seen 
the Father." Hence the angel of Jehovah must be his visible repre- 
sentative, the Memra, Logos, or Word. He claims and accepts 
worship, and was not therefore a created angel. 

Exod. vi. 3. "i The last three passages appear to disagree with 

Gen. xiii. 4. I the first because the appellation Jehovah r 3 em- 

„ xxvi. 2. [ ployed in them. The emphasis appears to us to 

„ xxviii. 16. J lie in the verb know, which denotes a practical 

knowledge of God by the fulfilment of promises made. The ancient 

Hebrews knew God Almighty by the protection he afforded to them, 

and his works of providence, but they did not know him by the ac- 

1 See Turner's Companion to the Book of Genesis, p. 333. 

2 Authentic des Pentateuches, vol. ii. p. 354. et seqq. 
8 Companion to Genesis, p. 334. 



Passages apparently contradictory. 513 

complishment of his promises. The name of Jehovah was known 
till their deliverance from Egypt, As the great Being who made 
promises to the patriarchs he was recognised ; but as giving effect to 
them he was first revealed to their posterity when they were brought 
forth from Egypt. Other solutions of the difficulty may be seen in 
my Hermeneutics. 

Exod. vii. 19, 20, 2L ~| If all the waters of Egypt became blood, it 
„ vii. 22. J has been asked, where did the magicians 

procure water for their enchantments ? According to the 20th verse 
Moses smote with his rod the waters that were in the river. Those 
waters alone, at least in the first instance, were turned into blood. In 
this stage of the plague, the magicians could easily obtain water to 
imitate the miracles wrought by Moses. We cannot tell Avhether the 
plague became commensurate with the extent of the divine injunc- 
tion, as recorded in the 19th verse. 

Exod. ix. 6. 1 The adjective all in the former plaee is popularly 
„ ix. 20. J used. It does not mean all without exception. 

Exod. xviii. 17 — 26. 1 It might naturally be inferred from the lat- 

Deut. i. 9 — 13. J ter place that Moses himself proposed the 

appointment of judges, whereas we learn from the former that it was 
suggested by Jethro. In the passage in Exodus, the writer records 
the private conversation that took place between Jethro and himself, 
allowing the honour of the arrangement to him with whom it 
originated. In Deuteronomy he is addressing the people, and relates 
what they knew as well as himself. 

Exod. xx. 11. 1 Here different reasons are given for the observance 

Deut. v. 15. J of the Sabbath. Yet the precepts are not discord- 
ant, for one and the same command may be enforced by two different 
motives. 

Exod. xx. 5. "I According to the necessary operation of the 

Ezek. xviii. 20. J principles which regulate the divine administra- 
tion, children suffer various evils because of the vices of their parents. 
The iniquities of the fathers are visited on the bodies and temporal 
condition of their children. In consequence of the mysterious union 
of soul and body, the punishment is not wholly corporal and external. 
The soul is deteriorated by shame. The paternal propensities appear 
in the mental constitution. This is consistent with Ezekiel, who 
says that each one shall be punished for his own sins. God will not 
transfer the penalty due to the sins of one to the head of another. In 
consequence of the divine arrangements, the sins of parents may em- 
bitter the pimishment of impenitent children ; but the distinct 
responsibility of each remains unaffected. Had the words " of them 
that hate me " been wanting in the commandment, the contradiction 
Avould have been formidable ; but as it is, there is only the appear- 
ance of repugnance. 

Lev. i. 1. "1 Here the one text relates indefinitely and gene- 

„ xxvii. 34. J rally what the other specifies with exactness. 

The Levitical law was promulgated from the tabernacle, and yet it 

was published in the neighbourhood of Sinai. The ordinances in 

VOL. II. L L 



514 Biblical Interpretation. 

question were delivered to the people in the vicinity of the mountain, 
not from the top of it. 

Lev. xvii. 1 — 7. 1 The latter place contains a relaxation 

Deut. xii. 15. 20, 21, 22. J of the prohibition in the former. When 
the tabernacle of the congregation was within a convenient distance, 
the Israelites were forbidden to eat any clean animal which they had 
killed without first bringing it to the door of the tabernacle of the 
congregation and offering it to the Lord. The injunction must have 
been strictly observed in the wilderness, where the people encamped 
together. But when they had entered Palestine, they were per- 
mitted to kill and eat flesh, provided the place where Jehovah had 
been pleased to put his name was too distant. The 10th verse of 
Deut. xii. seems to show that the latter law was intended to apply to 
the people in Palestine, " But when ye go over Jordan, and dwell in 
the land which the Lord your God giveth you to inherit, and when 
he giveth you rest from all your enemies round about, so that ye 
dwell in safety : then there shall be a place which the Lord your 
God shall choose," &c. 

Numb. iv. 3. "1 One way of reconciling these places is, that the 
,, viii. 24. J Levites spent five years in probation before they 
entered fully on the duties of their office. They began to officiate 
properly so called at thirty years of age. Vater, however, thinks 
that the two sections in which these different numbers appear, were 
written by different persons. Perhaps this is a preferable way of 
accounting for the difference. 

Numb. iii. 11. 22. 28. 34. "I In the last passage all the Levites are 
„ iii. 39. J given as 22,000. But when the pre- 

ceding numbers are added together they amount to 22,300. Here we 
cannot have recourse to the principle that a round number is given, 
because the context leads to the contrary. " In verse 43rd," says Ken- 
nicott, " all the first-born males of the Israelites are reckoned 22,273, 
which in verse 46th are expressly said to be 273 more than the Levites 
(and there was great reason for being exact in the calculation), and 
consequently the true number of the Levites must have been 22,000, 
as expressed in the sum total of the text. For if they had been 22,300, 
instead of the Israelites exceeding the Levites by 273, the Levites 
would have exceeded the Israelites by 27." l We reject Kennicott's 
solution, which assumes that there is a mistake in the number of 
the Gershonites (verse 22.), the numeral letter 1 = 200 being changed 
for 1 = 500. It is quite improbable that *1 final existed in the most 
ancient MSS. We suppose with Houbigant, that there is a tran- 
scriber's mistake in the 28th verse. 'W§ 3 six, should be tihty, three. 
Instead of six hundred read three hundred, and all is correct. 

Numb. xxxv. 4, 5. These two verses appear to contain a contradic- 
tion. In the one the length of the suburbs is given as a thousand 
cubits ; in the other two thousand cubits. The simplest method of 
reconciling the two seems to be that proposed by Rosenmiiller, viz., 
that each side of the suburbs is twice as long (two thousand cubits) 

1 Dissertation on the State of the printed Hebrew Text, pp. 99, 100. 



Passages apparently contradictory. 



515 



as a line drawn from the city outside (a thousand cubits), 
lowing figure will show this : — ■ 



The fol- 



2000 cubits. 



Other ways of explanation may be seen in Rosenmiiller's Scholia. 
Numb. xiii. i. 2. f These two passages may be reconciled by sup- 
Deut. i. 22. J posing that the people first suggested the 

sending of the spies, and that Grod sanctioned the proposal. The 
people desired it, and the Lord accordingly directed Moses to send 
the men. Vater, however, thinks that the diversity proceeded 
from the fact of the pieces having belonged to different original 
documents. 

Numb. xiv. 25. ~| The former passage states, " But the Amale- 
„ xiv. 45. J kites and the Canaanites dwell in the valley." 
The Lord warns them of the enemy's position, and exhorts them to 
take another direction in which they should not fall into the hands 
of the Canaanites. Yet the Israelites presumed to go up the hill : 
and therefore they were discomfited by the Amalekites and Ca- 
naanites. 

Numb. xiv. 30. 1 Joshua and Caleb, who brought back a good 
Josh. xiv. 1. J report of the promised land, are singled out by 
name, especially as they were afterwards the leaders. They are 
specified as the representatives of those who should be privileged to 
enter Canaan. It is manifest that they were not the only persons 
who entered the land. All the murmurers were excluded ; but it 
is no where said that such as did not murmur, among whom the 
priests may be reckoned, were debarred entrance. 

Some days were wanting to complete the 
exact number 40, as is evident from the last 
two places. The deficiency is five days. The 

L L 2 



lests may ue reuKoiiei 
Numb. xiv. 33. "j Sc 
Numb, xxxiii. 1 jex 
Josh. iv. 19. J J t\\ 



516 Biblical Interpretation. 

Israelites left Egypt on the fifteenth day of the first month ; the 
passage over Jordan was made on the tenth day of the first month. 
The round number forty is put. 

Numb. xxvi. 10. 1 It appears at first sight, that the first passage 
„ xvi. J- contradicts Numbers xvi. 31 — 35., and Psalm 

Psal. cvi. 17, 18. J cvi. 17, 18. There is considerable difficulty in 
the words of the last two passages. Taking the Psalm as our guide 
we resolve the matter thus. The 17th verse relates to the destruc- 
tion of those followers who were not Levites. This is narrated in 
Numbers xvi. 32, 33. The 18th verse relates to the destruction of 
Korah himself and his Levitical followers by fire. This is described 
in Numbers xvi. 35. In Numbers xxvi. 10. there is some confusion. 
The clause together with Korah is of a parenthetical nature and be- 
longs to what follows. It does not mean as it swallowed up Korah, 
but, at the same time with the destruction of Korah and his company 
hy fire. 

Deut. x. 6, 7. "] This discrepancy arises out of the 

Numb, xxxiii. 18 — 37,38. J- marchings of the children of Israel 
„ xx. 23 — 29. J through the wilderness, the difficulties 

connected with which have not yet been satisfactorily removed. 
Their stations are mentioned in various places, out of which exposi- 
tors have attempted to give a complete list from Mount Sinai till 
the arrival over against Jericho, forty years after. 

The list of stages in Deut. x. 6, 7. is said to be at variance with the 
part that refers to the same places in Numb, xxxiii. 31 — 33. The 
latter makes the Israelites journey from Moseroth to Bene-jaakan ; 
the former from Bene-jaakan to Mosera. Besides, in Deuteronomy 
the death of Aaron is placed at Mosera, two stages before Jotbath ; 
whereas the list in Numbers places the same event at mount Hor, 
four stages after Jotbathah. 

We assume a twofold stay at Kadesh. After arriving there from 
Sinai the Israelites turned back and wandered for thirty-eight years. 
In Numb, xxxiii. 18 — 36. is an account of this intervening time, 
i. e. from Kadesh to Kadesh again. But in Deut. x. 6, 7. is an ac- 
count of stations after the Israelites set out from Kadesh to go to 
the Jordan, with which Numb, xxxiii. 37. synchronises. Aaron died 
after the Israelites left Kadesh the second time, at Hor or Mosera. 
How then, it is asked, are we to account for the fact that Mosera, 
which in both lists is next to Ben-jaakan, is placed in the first 
list (Numb, xxxiii.) seven stages from mount Hor? Because in 
Numb, xxxiii. 30 — 36. the stations on the return to Kadesh are 
given ; whereas in Deut. x. 6. and Numb, xxxiii. 37. the stations 
are given on a subsequent journey. The death of Moses did not 
take place when the Israelites came to Moseroth, from Kadesh 
to Kadesh ; but it happened when they came to Mosera or Hor 
again after they had left Kadesh the second time. Some places, 
Mosera among them, were revisited on the journey from Kadesh to 
the Jordan. 1 

Many able critics deny the twofold visit to Kadesh, among 
1 See Robinson's Palestine, vol. ii. p. 678. 



Passages apparently contradictory. 517 

whom are Ewald and Winer. The former has endeavoured to trace 
the stations on the hypothesis of one stay at Kadesh. The latter, 
objecting to his method, has given a few hints of the manner in 
which the march through the wilderness is to be regarded. But 
they do not harmonise the notices in Numbers and Deuteronomy. 
Indeed Winer leaves Deuteronomy out of the account. 

But although the method just given removes the discrepancy be- 
tween these two passages, there are difficulties in Deut. x. 6 — 9. 
which cannot be denied. The words have no connection with the 
context. On the contrary, they interrupt the narrative, which reads 
better without them. Again, the separation of the Israelites did 
not take place at Jotbathah as here stated, but at Sinai, before the 
Israelites began their journey northward. In regard to the latter, 
the phrase at that time, with which the eighth verse begins, need not 
refer to the place mentioned immediately before, but to the fifth verse, 
the time when Moses was at Sinai. Cappellus and many after him 
suppose that the entire passage is an interpolation, introduced into 
the text by the mistake of some transcriber. It is however in the 
Septuagint and all the ancient versions. There is no authority for 
regarding it as spurious. Kennicott adopts the Samaritan, which 
agrees here with Numbers. Doubtless it was altered by the Sama- 
ritans so as to harmonise with the passage in Numbers. See Lilien- 
thal, Buxtorf ( Anticritica), and Rosenmiiller. 

Josh. x. 15. 1 In the former place Joshua is said to have returned, 
„ x. 43. J and all Israel with him, to Gilgal, which he did not 
do till the end of the expedition (verse 43.). Yarious hypotheses 
have been proposed to clear away the difficulty here. One of them, 
by Masius, is ingenious, viz. that when it is said in verse 15th that 
Joshua returned, the meaning is no more than he resolved to return, 
or he made preparations for returning. In confirmation of this 
usage of the verb, he refers to Numb. xxiv. 25., where " Balaam 
returned to his place " means no more than thought of returning. 
But we reject the proposed solution. We lay no stress on the absence 
of the 15th verse from the most ancient copies of the LXX., viz., 
the Alexandrine and Vatican MSS. The verse may be an inter- 
polation, as some have thought. It appears to us that verses 12, 
13, 14, 15. contain a quotation or extract from the book of Jasher. 
This is plainly intimated by the writer in the middle of the thir- 
teenth verse, "Is not this written in the book of Jasher?" The 
passage so quoted plainly interrupts the whole narrative. It is no 
part of the word of God, being taken from this ancient book of 
poems. Insuperable difficulties are created by it, if we look upon it 
in any other light than as a piece of the book of Jasher which may 
be rejected or not according to its internal probability. None can 
doubt here of the fictitious character of what is related. See an 
elaborate and able Essay by Mr. Hopkins in the Biblical Repository 
for January 1845: and Donaldson's Jashar. 

Josh. x. 23. 1 The king mentioned in the former place need not 
„ x. 37. J have been the king in the latter. When the one 
had been slain, the inhabitants of Hebron may have chosen another. 



518 Biblical Interpretation. 

Josh. xi. 19. 1 These two passages are not contradictory. Joshua 
„ xv. 63. J took the town of Jerusalem and put its king to 
death ; but he was not able to expel the Jebusites from the citadel 
or fortress they had erected on Mount Zion. The Jews and Jebu- 
sites continued to dwell together till the time of David, who sub- 
dued the latter. 

Judges vi. 1. 1 Here is no opposition, for it is not said in the 

Numb. xxxi. 7 — 10. J latter passage that all the Midianites were ex- 
tirpated. They inhabited an extensive district. Besides, 200 years 
intervened between their discomfiture by Phinehas and their op- 
pression of the Israelites spoken of in the former place. They had 
increased in numbers and strength during so long a period. 

Judges xx. 35. 1 In the latter place a round or whole number is 
„ xx. 46. J given without the fraction specified in the former. 
We are inclined to believe with Bertheau that another and more 
copious account of the battle is given in 36 — 46. It is loosely con- 
nected with the former in 29 — 35. If this be so, there is no reason 
for supposing the twenty-fifth verse spurious, as De Wette and 
others do. 

In Judges ix. 5. 18. 56. Abimelech is said to have slain his 
seventy brethren, though Jotham escaped. The round number is 
given. In like manner the period during which the Israelites so- 
journed in the land of the Amorites is called 300 years (Judges xi. 
26.), whereas strictly speaking it was hardly so much. 

1 Sam. xii. 11. There is no mention of Bedan among the judges 
of Israel. The name seems to be a contraction for Ben Ban, son 
of Dan, meaning Samson, who was a Danite. 

In 1 Sam. xvi. 18 — 22. there is an account of David's introduc- 
tion to Saul, of the king's attachment to him, and his being made 
armour-bearer to the king. But in xvii. we read of the king saying 
to him after he was brought before him, " Whose son art thou, 
thou young man?" (55 — 58.) Bishops Hall, Warburton, and 
Horsley have supposed that the encounter with Goliath was prior 
to David's playing before Saul. Hence the last ten verses of the 
sixteenth chapter are thought to be misplaced. Horsley makes the 
sixteenth chapter end with the thirteenth verse, transferring the 
remainder to the eighteenth chapter and inserting it between the 
ninth and tenth verses. Notwithstanding the plausibility of this 
solution, we believe it to be inadequate. The objections we have 
stated to it elsewhere remain in full force. After David had slain 
Goliath, and had been taken by Saul to the palace to reside with 
himself, " he behaved himself wisely," and " Saul set him over the 
men of war," &c. (chap, xviii. 5., &c). Yet, after these trans- 
actions, on the king's inquiring for a man that could play well, one 
of the servants said, " I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite 
that is cunning in playing, and a mighty valiant man, and a man of 
.war, and prudent in matters, and a comely person, and the Lord is 
with him " (xvi. 18.). It is improbable that any servant should have 
spoken thus to Saul of David, after the king entertained feelings of 
jealousy towards him. He eyed him with suspicion and envy on 



Passages apparently contradictory. 519 

account of his rising reputation, and it would have been a certain 
means of provoking the choleric king, to have pronounced encomiums 
on David before him. Nor can it be said with any degree of pro- 
bability that Saul's feelings towards David were unknown to his 
household ; for it is written in the eighteenth verse of the sixteenth 
chapter, " Then answered one of the servants and said, Behold," &c. 
The manner too in which the servant speaks of David implies that 
Saul had neither seen him before nor had any knowledge of him : 
" I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite." Again, the recep- 
tion which the king gives to David clearly intimates that he was 
a stranger introduced for the first time : " And David came to Saul, 
and stood before him ; and he loved him greatly ; and he became his 
armour-bearer" (xvi. 21.). Surely this is not consistent with what 
he said immediately before, that he eyed him from that day and 
forward. Besides, according to the proposed arrangement, Saul is 
said to have made David his armour-bearer, though he had pre- 
viously set him over the men of war and feared his growing popu- 
larity. There is no hint of his having been dismissed from the 
palace and returned to his father's after Saul became displeased with 
the demonstrations made in his favour. Bather do the words of 
chap, xviii. verse 9. imply that he still remained in the palace. And 
yet Saul sent for him, with the mandate to his father, " Send me 
David, thy son, which is with the sheep" (xvi. 29.). The words 
are not, " Send me David, who was with me before," or, " who slew 
Goliath," but, " who is with the sheep." Surely this language 
leads to the belief that he had not been with the king before, or ex- 
cited his jealousy so much as to be dismissed. If so, his envy was 
speedily laid aside, and David became, after all his popularity, a 
favourite with Saul. 

But Horsley affirms that the encounter with Goliath and the 
events which immediately succeeded, as narrated in chap, xviii. 1 — 9., 
took place long before David's introduction to Saul as a musician. 
The king therefore may have entirely forgotten the youth. But 
that the time between the victory and his coming to court in the 
character of a musician could not have been long, is shown by the 
inspection of the entire narrative. 

These are some of the considerations standing in the way of that 
arrangement which has recommended itself to many expositors as 
entirely satisfactory. In our view they constitute as serious a dif- 
ficulty as that which they are intended to remove. So far from 
annihilating the inconsistency, they introduce into the narrative a 
still greater. This solution therefore cannot be adopted." 1 

Other methods of reconciling the accounts may be seen in the 
place from which the preceding observations are extracted. We 
believe that the only satisfactory solution is that which supposes the 
original writer of the sixteenth chapter different from the writer of 
the seventeenth. The account of David in the sixteenth chapter is 
brief and incomplete. Accordingly the compiler of the book took 

1 Sacred Hermeneutics. pp. 542 543. 
l l 4 



520 Biblical Interpretation. 

the section xvii. 12 — 31., and placed it where it now is without soli- 
citude as to its nicely fitting the context. The appearance of dis- 
turbing the connection seemed a small thing to him. He knew that 
it presented a true account of a portion of David's history, and saw 
that there was no better place for it than the present. The com- 
pilatory character of the books of Samuel accounts for the unchro- 
nological, disjointed, loosely-connected nature of many parts. 1 

1 Sam. xxxi. 4. 1 The Amalekite who is the speaker in the second 

2 Sam. i. 10. J account exaggerates and falsifies in order to please 
David and obtain a reward. In this manner any discrepancy be- 
tween Sam. xxxi. 4. and 2 Sam. i. 6 — 10. must be reconciled. The 
■person who speaks in the latter place solves the difficulty. 

2 Sam. viii. 4. 1 What is 700 in the former is 7000 in the 

1 Chron. xviii. 4. J latter. Nun final denotes 700. 7000 is marked 
by zayin with two dots. Hence a transcriber confounded the two 
letters and neglected the points over one of them. 7000 is the right 
number. 

2 Sam. x. 18. \ Here the like mistake has been made, 700 for 

1 Chron. xix. 18. j 7000. 

2 Sam. xxiii. 8. \ A minute comparison of these texts will show 
1 Chron. xi. 11. J that both are corrupt. Kennicott finds three 

corruptions in the former, but he fails to throw much light on the 
words. 

1. In Samuel the two words T)2W2 nK», « sitting in the seat," should 
be Dyncy' 1 , viz. Jashobeam, as in Chronicles. Kennicott accounts for 
the mistake of the transcriber by supposing that he wrote the first 
three letters, and then instead of continuing the word, carelessly cast 
his eye on the word DIKO in the line immediately above and tran- 
scribed it in here, instead of the remaining syllable of the proper 
word. 

2. The three words in Samuel rendered the same was Adino the 
Eznite are corrupt. "We should read as in Chronicles, he lifted up 
his spear. This is confirmed by verse 18. and the LXX. 

3. The Avord T>T\, translated as a verb he slew, should be ??n. In 
the 18th verse the LXX. have Tpavfxarlas, whence we may infer 
that they read PTI here. 

4. Instead of eight hundred the Chronicles have three hundred, Vih& 
for nJOfc?. We believe that the former number is right and the latter 
wrong. 

The passage in Samuel should read thus : " These be the names 
of the mighty men whom David had ; Jashobeam the Tachmonite, 
one of the heads of the mighty men : he lifted up his spear over eight 
hundred wounded on one occasion." Three hundred had been pros- 
trated by him and the corps he commanded. After the fight was over 
he waved his spear in triumph over the fallen, saying perhaps, " These 
are my trophies." 2 The next verse also in 2 Sam. xxiii. is corrupt, as 
compared with its parallel in Chronicles. 

1 See my Biblical Criticism, vol. i. p. 397. et seqq. 

2 See Thenius on the Kings. 



apparently contradictory. 521 

2 Sam. xxiv. 1. "I God is sometimes said to do what he permits 

1 Chron. xxi. 1. J others to do. Thus he hardened Pharaoh's heart. 
So in the present case he permitted Satan to tempt David. Satan 
was the active agent in the case. The Scriptures are not at all 
careful in drawing such distinctions as we are now accustomed to. 
They unhesitatingly ascribe things to God which can only be properly 
ascribed to agents under him. The ultimate and intermediate causes 
are not distinguished. Whatever is done under the moral government 
of Jehovah is attributed directly to him. In accordance with this 
principle Isaiah introduces Jehovah as saying, " I cause peace, and 
I create evil" (Isa. xlv. 7.). 

2 Sam. xxiv. 9. \ Here there is a contradiction in numbers. Ac- 
1 Chron. xxi. 5. J cording to the first writer 800,000 men capable 

of bearing arms belonged to Israel and 500,000 to Judah. According 
to the second writer 1,100,000 belonged to Israel, 470,000 to Judah. 
We believe that the munbers even in Samuel are extraordinarily 
and incredibly large. The population was very dense ; but it was 
not so great as here stated. The small territory of Palestine could 
not have supported so many. Taking even the smaller numbers in 
Samuel we must hold it probable that they stood in the original text, 
because they are supported by the oldest versions. In them there- 
fore may be seen the influence of popular tradition enlarging and 
magnifying. All attempts at reconciling the numbers fail. Bertheau, 
who apologises throughout as far as he is able for the writer of 
Chronicles, and defends him against preceding assaults, admits that 
the large numbers do not suit well even with the account in 1 Chron. 
xxvii. 1 — 15., since they imply that David had a standing army of 
about 300,000 men. 

The editor of the quarto edition of Calmet's Dictionary endea- 
vours to harmonise the numbers thus. " It appears by 1 Chron. 
xxvii. that there were twelve divisions of generals who commanded 
monthly, and whose duty was to keep guard near the king's person, 
each having a body of troops consisting of 24,000 men, which jointly 
formed a grand army of 288,000; and as a separate body of 12,000 
men naturally attended on the twelve princes of the twelve tribes 
mentioned in the same chapter, the whole will be 300,000; which 
is the difference between the two accounts of 800,000, and of 
1,100,000. As to the men of Israel, the author of Samuel does not 
take notice of the 300,000, because they were in the actual service 
of the king as a standing army, and therefore there was no need to 
number them; but Chronicles joins them to the rest, saying expressly 
(Vktb* b), ' all those of Israel were 1,100,000;' whereas the author 
of Samuel, who reckons only the 800,000, does not say (^K")B" ba) 
' all those of Israel,' but barely (7&nE» »nni) ' and Israel were,' &c. It 
must also be observed that, exclusive of the troops before mentioned, 
there was an army of observation on the frontiers of the Philistines' 
country composed of 30,000 men, as appears by 2 Sam. vi. 1., which, 
it seems, were included in the number of 500,000 of the people of 
Judah, by the author of Samuel ; but the author of Chronicles, who 
mentions only 470,000, gives the number of that tribe exclusive of 



522 Biblical Interpretation. 

those 30,000 men, because they were not all of the tribe of Judah, 
and therefore he does not say (rnirp ?D) i all those of Judah,' as he 
had said (?vew ») ' all those of Israel,' but only (miiTl) ' and those 
of Judah.' Thus both accounts may be reconciled by only having 
recourse to other parts of Scripture treating on the same subject, 
which will ever be found the best method of explaining difficult pas- 
sages." Such ingenious trifling needs no refutation. 

2 Sam. xxiv. 13. 1 Here the Chronicle-reading attested by the 

1 Chron. xxi. 11, 12. J LXX. is the right one. The letter 3 = 3 was 
changed into t = 7. The solution which has been proposed, viz. 
three years' famine in addition to the three which had been already 
with the current year included (comp. 2 Sam. xxi. 1.) is insufficient, 
because the three years in chapter xxi. are totally distinct from the 
present. They related to a different transaction. 

2 Sam. xxiv. 24. 1 These two places are irreconcilable, as is ad- 
1 Chron. xxi. 25. J mitted even by Bertheau. We adhere to the 

account in Samuel, for the other appears to be exaggerated. If the 
Chronicle-writer had the text as it now is in Samuel before him, 
Thenius is right in saying that Er hat absichtlich uebertrieben ; if not, 
the expression is too strong. We cannot tell how the text can be 
brought into harmony. All explanations which have been proposed 
are but guesses. One of the most plausible is_, that the sum men- 
tioned in Samuel was for the floor, oxen, and wooden instruments 
only ; the latter for the whole hill. But this would imply two dis- 
tinct purchases, which is wholly improbable. The place in Chronicles 
is no doubt identical with the threshing -floor in Samuel. 

1 Kings iv. 26. (Heb. v. 6.) \ Here the text in Kings is corrupt. 

2 Chron. ix. 25. J It should he four instead of forty, 
as in Chronicles. 12,000 horsemen to 40,000 chariots would be out 
of proportion. We learn from 1 Kings x. 26., and 2 Chron. i. 14., 
that Solomon had 1400 chariots. There were two horses to each, as 
is inferred from all Egyptian and Assyrian memorials. There was 
also a reserve horse (Xenophon Cyrop. vi. 1. 27.). This makes 4200 
horses, viz. 1400 x2 = 2800 + 1400. Here therefore the round 
number 4000 stands for 4200. Another solution, which represents 
the author of Kings speaking of the horses and the author of Chro- 
nicles of the stalls in which they were kept, we now reject as 
improbable. 

1 Kings v. 11. \ Here the accounts differ in various respects. As 

2 Chron. ii. 10. J they now stand they are irreconcilable. 1st. 
The twenty measures of pure oil mentioned in Kings should be twenty 
thousand, as in Chronicles, for the latter number brings the due pro- 
portion into the account. The LXX., Symmaehus, and Josephus 
confirm this. 2ndly. 20,000 measures of barley and 20,000 baths of 
wine in Chronicles, are passed over in Kings. 3rdly. The account 
in Chronicles says that these things were presented to Hiram on one 
occasion ; while that in Kings speaks of a yearly present. 4thly. The 
account in Chronicles says that the articles given were for the main- 
tenance of Hiram's servants; that in Kings that they were for 
Hiram's household. The narrative in Kings seems trustworthy and 



Passages apparently contradictory. 523 

accurate ; that in Chronicles is wrought up in the manner of the 
writer, and is less exact. 

1 Kings vii. 15. 1 Here eighteen cubits is the right number, being 

2 Chron. iii. 15. J attested by all the versions, and with a single 
exception, by all the parallels, as well as by the 19th verse. The 
number 35 in Chronicles arose from altering n ,| = 18 into n? = 35. 
The older interpreters, and Movers in recent times, would reconcile 
the numbers as they stand by assuming that the former text speaks 
of the length of the pillars separately, the latter of their length 
together. Each was nearly 18 cubits long (stated in round numbers 
as 18), and both amounted to 35. This is wholly improbable. 

1 Kings ix. 23. 1 Here the number 550 is the right one, being 

2 Chron. viii. 10. J confirmed by all the versions and Josephus. 
The Chronicle-number 250 is corrupt. Kennicott thinks that it 
originated from mistaking 31 for )\ 

1 Kings ix. 28. 1 The number 420 is the right one. The 450 of 

2 Chron. viii. 18. J Chronicles arose from confounding 5 with 3. 

1 Kings xv. 10. "| These places are commonly reconciled by as- 

2 Chron. xiii. 2. J suming that DK denotes grandmother in the 
former, and mother in the latter. So even Ewald supposes. But 
Thenius objects, and with reason, to this solution. He thinks that 
by a transcriber's mistake the words daughter of Abishalom were 
taken into the text. The Chronicle-name Michaiah should be as in 
Kings Maachah, for the former is always the name of a man. "We 
adopt Thenius's opinion. 

1 Kings xvi. 23. \ Some may assume an error in the number 31 
„ xvi. 10. 15. J in the former place, thinking it should be 27. 
Omri immediately succeeded Zimri, the latter reigned but 7 days, 
yet Omri began to reign in the 27th of Asa. The 12 years men- 
tioned in the first passage were not full years nor reckoned from 
Zimri's death, because Ahab, son of Omri, entered upon his reign in 
the 38th year of Asa (1 Kings xvi. 29.). Hence the beginning of 
his reign in the 31st year of Asa can mean nothing but that of his 
undisturbed possession of the throne. During four years he was not 
securely fixed in possession of the kingdom. See Thenius. 



2 Kings viii. 16. 
2 Kings i. 17. 

1 Kings xxii. 52. 1 

2 Kings viii. 17. 
2 Chron. xx. 31.,xxi. 5. 



The words in the first text, Jehoshaphat 
being then king of Judah, arose from a 
■ mistake in transcription, and should be 
expunged, with Houbigant, Kennicott, 
Maurer, and Thenius. They are wanting 
in several MSS., in the Aldine LXX., the Syriac, and the Arabic. In 
2 Kings i. 17., we believe that the text is corrupt. Several MSS. of 
De Rossi have a space in the verse. Instead of in the second year of 
Jehoram, son of Jehoshaphat, we should read in the two and twentieth 
year of Jehoshaphat. In 1 Kings xxii. 52., the text is also corrupt, 
as it contradicts other places. The 17th year should be the 21st. 
It has been often assumed, that Jehoram when 32 years old was 
associated with his father in the kingdom, and reigned with him 
8 years. He afterwards succeeded his father and reigned alone. But 
this assumption is very improbable. It is an expedient which has 



524 Biblical Interpretation. 

been resorted to in various instances without reason. "We agree with 
Greswell and Clinton in avoiding it wherever it is possible. In the 
present instance it is highly improbable, as has been shown by 
Thenius, to whom we refer for an able elucidation of the numbers 
connected with Jehoram's reign. 

2 Kings xiii. 1. "I In the second passage 39 is required for 37. 
„ xiii. 10. J The numeral letters tt and 1, were confounded. 
The Aldine LXX. has 39. See Thenius on Kings. 

2 Kings xv. 1. "I Here the name Azariah, in the first text, 

„ xv. 32. 34. J- should be Uzziah. And it follows from xiv. 
„ xiv. 17. J 17., that the number 27 is erroneous. It 
should be 15. The mistake arose from changing IB = 15 into TD = 27. 
Amaziah survived Jehoash not full fifteen years. Hence his son 
Uzziah must have come to the throne in the fifteenth year of Jero- 
boam, who followed Jehoash. 

2 Kings xv. 30. \ In the first passage the number 20 must be 
„ xv. 33. J erroneous. It should be as in the second. The 
mistake arose in transcription, perhaps in the manner Thenius has 
pointed out. 

2 Kings xv. 30. "} The twelfth year of Ahaz in the latter passage is 
„ xvii. 1. J wrong. Hoshea's predecessor Pekah reigned 30 
years (xv. 27.), Ahaz became king in his 17th year (xvii. 1.), and 
therefore Ahaz must have reigned contemporaneously with Pekah 
13 years. Hoshea must have come to the throne in the 14th of Ahaz. 
T = 14 was changed into 3* = 12. We greatly prefer this to Calmet's 
solution. 

2 Kings xxiii. 30. "1 Here we believe that both texts are reconcil- 

2 Chron. xxxv. 24. J able as they stand, though Winer, Thenius, 
and others suppose them to be contradictory. In the former place 
the word np should be rendered dying or in a dying state, a significa- 
tion which Ewald and Von Gumpach allow to the word. The 
king expired at Jerusalem, not Megiddo. See Bertheau on Chro- 
nicles. 

2 Kings xxiv. 8. \ We believe that 18 in the first passage is right, 

2 Chron. xxxvi. 9. J and 8 in the second wrong. The letter * be- 
came in some way effaced in the latter. Keil, Hitzig, and Bertheau 
suppose the error to be in 18 ; but this is much less probable. Ac- 
cordingly Thenius has rightly defended 18. 

2 Kings xxiv. 6. 1 In the one passage it is implied that 

Jer. xxii. 19., xxxvi. 30. J Jehoiakim died a natural death ; but in 
Jeremiah he is represented as coming to a shameful end and his body 
being refused burial. Probably he fell in a battle with the warlike 
bands mentioned in the second verse of the chapter, and was not 
therefore buried. Or, we may assume with Ewald, that he was 
craftily enticed out of Jerusalem, taken, and miserably put to death, 
and his body refused burial. 2 Chron. xxxvi. 6. does not imply that 
he was actually carried to Babylon, but only that Nebuchadnezzar 
intended to do so. But on account of the obstinacy and resistance 
offered by Jehoiakim he was put to death, after being taken prisoner. 
Still we admit that the expressions in 2 Kings xxiv. 6. in their most 



Passages apparently contradictory. 525 

natural sense imply that he was buried with his fathers,, while the others 
assert he was not buried at all. The difficulty or contradiction is 
still more apparent in the LXX., who in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 8., after the 
word Judah insert, Jehoiakim slept with his fathers, and was buried in 
the garden of Uzzah. If these words be old, the compiler of Chro- 
nicles and the writer of Kings did not insert them, because they 
make it palpable that the prophecy of Jeremiah was not fulfilled. 
But even as the texts now stand we cannot bring the prophecy and 
its accomplishment into harmony. Winer's solution is inadequate". 
2 Kings xxiv. 14. 1 Here the numbers plainly disagree. In Jere- 
Jer. lii. 28. J miah the number should be 10,023, which is 

more exact than the round number 10,000 in Kings. The mistake 
arose from converting ^ = 10 into 3 = 3. 

2 Sam. x. 6. 1 Here it will be found on examination that the 

1 Chron. xix. 7. J numbers in both places agree. According to 
the first, Aram Beth-rehob and Aram furnished 20,000 footmen, 
the king of Maacah 1000 men, and the kingdom of Tob 12,000. 
The 20,000 and the 12,000 make up the 32,000 given in the Chro- 
nicles. The 1000 of the king of Maacah are passed over in the ac- 
count of 'Chronicles. In Chronicles the land of Tob is omitted. In 
2 Samuel only foot soldiers are mentioned, while according to 
Chronicles, the hired troops consist of 35'}., riders. 

2 Chron. iv. 3. ~[ The word D^pS, in the former passage 
1 Kings vii. 24, 25, 26. J translated oxen, should be D»ypB, knops, as in 

Kings. Similar letters were mistaken for one another by a trans- 
criber. Others have ingeniously conjectured that the architectural 
ornaments called knops were in the form of oxen. 

1 Chron. vi. 70. (55 Heb.) "j Instead of Aner and Bileam in Chro- 
Joshua xvii. 11. J- nicies, Joshua has Taanach and Gath- 

„ xix. 45. J rimmon. We believe that Aner was 

originally Taanach, "pyrrnx in Joshua having been altered into "Ujrnx 
by changing "I into 1. Gath-rimmon in Joshua is a mistake originating 
in the preceding verse, for Bileam is a town in Manasseh, which 
should be noticed here. Ibleam in Joshua xvii. 11. is the same with 
Bileam in Chronicles, the latter being an abridged form. 

1 Chron. v. 26. "I In the former place it is said that Tiglath- 

2 Kings xvii. 6. J pilneser carried away the Israelites into the same 
parts which the latter represents Shalmaneser as taking them to. 
We are inclined to believe that both places refer to the same event, 
the time of Tiglath-pilneser and Shalmaneser being confounded by 
the writer of the Chronicles. The words in Kings *1D nyi |m nm, the 
river of Gozan and cities of the Medes, are in Chron., JT13 "ini 1 ! Kin, 
Hara and the river of Gozan. It is likely that the writer of the 
latter followed an indefinite tradition and relied on memory. See 
Bertheau. 

1 Chron. xviii. 4. "I In the former are 7000 horsemen, in the latter 

2 Sam. viii. 4. J 700. Probably the former is the correct num- 
ber. If so, the latter should be changed. 

1 Chron. xviii. 11. "1 In the former place the words which he took, 

2 Sam. viii. 11. J Kift "W$, imply that David dedicated to Je- 



526 Biblical Interpretation. 

hovah all the silver and gold which he took from the conquered 
nations. But this contradicts 2 Sam. viii. 7. Hence the reading of 
2 Sam. viii. 11. &npn -ifcytf, which he dedicated, is preferable to that in 
Chronicles. 

1 Chron. xviii. 16. 1 In the former passage the right orthography 

1 Sam. xxii. 20. j of the name is Ahimelek, as in 2 Sam. viii. 17. 
It is strange however, that Ahimelek should be called the son of 
Abiathar, since in the latter passage Abiathar is mentioned among 
the sons of Ahimelek. Hence both Thenius and Ewald alter the 
reading in 1 Chron. xviii. 16., into Abiathar son of Ahimelek, to agree 
with the reading in 1 Sam. xxii. 20. But in 1 Chron. xxiv. 3. 31. a 
high priest Ahimelek appears in addition to Zadok, who is called son 
of Abiathar in the 6th verse. Thus the high priests of the line of 
Ithamar are Ahimelek, his son Abiathar, and the son of Abiathar, 
Ahimelek. The grandfather and grandson have the same name, a 
thing not unusual. The writer of the Chronicles knew of an Ahi- 
melek, son of Abiathar, who during the life of his father performed 
the duties of high priest under David's rule. As he is mentioned 
along with Zadok in 1 Chron. xxiv. 3. 6. 31., so he appears in 1 Chron. 
xviii. 16. along with Zadok also. If we were to alter Ahimelek 
into Abiathar and Abiathar into Ahimelek in 1 Chron. xviii. 16., we 
should have to make the same alteration in 1 Chron. xxiv. 3. 6. 31. 
We believe the passage to be right as it stands. See Bertheau. 

2 Chron. xxii. 8. \ In the former place are mentioned the princes 
2 Kings x. 13. J of Judah and the sons of the brethren of Ahaziah ; 

in the latter, the brethren of Ahaziah king of Judah. Some suppose 
that brethren in the latter mean male relatives generally. But the 
mode of explanation adopted by Bertheau is preferable, who sup- 
poses that there were two different traditions respecting the violent 
death of all the brethren of Ahaziah. According to the one, they 
were murdered in the great judicial slaughter of Jehu, which is 
followed in Kings. According to the other, they perished somewhat 
earlier in an incursion of the Arabians and Philistines. The Chro- 
nicle-writer had both accounts, and in order to bring them into 
harmony put for the forty-two brethren in Kings, princes of Judah 
and sons of the brethren. 

2 Chron. xxii. 9. 1 These two accounts of the death of Ahaziah 
2 Kings ix. 27. J are contradictory. The former states that he 
concealed himself in Samaria, was found there, brought to Jehu, and 
put to death. The account in the latter is, that he died in Megiddo. 
Various attempts have been made to reconcile the two narratives by 
Buddeus, Lightfoot, Jarchi, &c, and more recently by Keil. Ac- 
cording to the last writer Ahaziah fled first to the way of the garden- 
house, and escaped thence to Samaria. From this place he was 
brought to Jehu, who was still in or near Jezreel, and by his com- 
mand smitten on the way to Gur, so that fleeing onward as far as 
Megiddo he expired. Movers's attempt is still more unsuccessful. 
The account in Chronicles appears confused and indistinct ; while 
that in Kings has all the appearance of accuracy. The facts were 
not clearly remembered by the Chronicle-writer. His recollection 



Passages apparently contradictory. 527 

was confused, and he was unable to distinguish the separate oc- 
currences. Hence he brought the death of Ahaziah into connection 
with the oceurrences in Samaria related in 2 Kings. 

2 Chron. iv. 5. 1 The most natural way of reconciling these two 

1 Kings vii. 26. J places is to suppose that the 3000 baths in Chro- 
nicles should be 2000, the letter 2 = 2 having been altered into i = 3. 
Other methods have been proposed, but all are objectionable. Even 
that of Taylor will not stand the test, who suggests that the writer of 
the Chronicles not merely states the quantity of water which the 
basin held, but that also which was necessary to work it, to keep it 
flowing as a fountain — that which was required to fill both it and its 
accompaniments. 

2 Chron. xxii. 2. "I The number 42 in the former passage is clearly 
2 Kings viii. 26. J wrong. It should be 22. 3 and 2 were inter- 
changed. We reject Lightfoot's solution, that Ahaziah began to 
reign in the 2 2d year of his aye, but in the 42d of the kinydom of his 
mother's family. 

2 Chron. xxviii. 20, 21. "I Here there is no real contradiction. Ac- 
2 Kings xvi. 7 — 9. J cording to both places Ahaz sought help 

from Assyi'ia. But in Chronicles it is said that Tiglath-pileser came 
unto him and oppressed him, but did not overpower him (not, did not 
strenythen him). He laid siege to Jerusalem, but did not take it, for 
" Ahaz took away a portion out of the house of God (plundered the 
sanctuary), and out of the house of the king, and of the princes, and 
gave it unto the king of Assyria, but he helped him not," i. e. it did 
not avail to procure him the assistance of Tiglath-pileser against 
the Edomites and Philistines. Even Thenius admits that the two 
accounts harmonise ; and Bertheau accordingly shows their full 
agreement. 
2 Chron. xxxvi. 9, 10. "I In the former place Zedekiah is called the 
2 Kings xxiv. 17. J brother of Jehoiachin, but in the latter, his 

uncle. He was the third son of Josiah, who with the second son Jehoa- 
haz had one mother (2 Kings xxiv. 18., xxiii. 31.), and at the death of 
his father was ten years of age. Jehoiachin at that time had no son, 
for children were born to him for the first time in captivity; 
and therefore he (Zedekiah) had the nearest claim to the throne. 
When he is called the brother of Jehoiachin, it is meant that he is 
the real brother (not a near relative), for in 1 Chron. iii. 16. Jecho- 
niah and Zedekiah are given as the sons of Jehoiakim. Hence for 
father's brother in 2 Kings xxiv. 17., we must read brother, as in 
Chronicles. 

Ezra ii. 1 We are unable fairly to reconcile the numbers 

Nehemiah vii. J in these two chapters. The reader will find 
an attempt to harmonise them in my Biblical Criticism. It is only 
an attempt ; and it would be vain to conceal the want of entire 
satisfaction with it. Alting's may appear plausible at first sight, 
but it is radically unsound. We give it without farther remark. The 
whole congregation together was 42,360 persons returned from 
Babylon. The numbers in Nehemiah amount to 31,089, and in Ezra 
to 29,818. Nehemiah mentions 1765 persons omitted in Ezra ; and 



528 Biblical Interpretation. 

Ezra mentions 494 omitted by Nehemiah. If therefore Ezra's 
surplus be added to the sum in Nehemiah, and Nehemiah's surplus 
to the number in Ezra, they will both become 31,583. Subtracting 
this from 42,360 there will be a deficiency of 10,777. These are 
omitted because they did not belong to Judah and Benjamin or to the 
priests, but to the other tribes. 

Prov. xxvi. 4. \ These passages have been already explained. See 
„ xxvi. 5. J page 494. 

Dan. i.l. "I In the latter passage the commencement of Nebuchad- 

Jer.xxv. 1. J nezzar's reign appears to be placed in the fourth year 
of Jehoiakim ; but in the former, Nebuchadnezzar is said to have 
come against Jerusalem in the third year of Jehoiakim's reign. The 
third year of Jehoiakim corresponds to 607 B.C. That Nebuchad- 
nezzar came against Jerusalem near the close of that year has been 
inferred from two circumstances, viz. the fast kept by Jehoiakim and 
his people on the 9th month of the fifth year of this king. This 
fast was commemorative of some great evil, either the capture of the 
city, or anticipative of some dangerous struggle, such as Jehoiakim's 
rebellion. And as Nebuchadnezzar is called king on this expedition, 
and as we know that Jehoiakim's fourth year corresponded with the 
first year of Nebuchadnezzar, as viewed by the Hebrews, it follows 
of course that the invasion by Nebuchadnezzar must have been late 
in 607. If so, then the greater part of his first year as counted by 
the Hebrews corresponded to the fourth year of Jehoiakim. Such 
is the solution proposed by Stuart. We prefer the following. 

Nebuchadnezzar was associated with his father in the throne of 
Babylon, before he set out on his celebrated expedition against hither 
Asia. A passage in Berosus favours this statement. Hence the 
first year of Nebuchadnezzar means the first year of his joint reign. 
To this however it may be objected, that in another place Daniel 
reckons the second year of Nebuchadnezzar (ii. 1.) the second of his 
sole sovereignty. But the difference may arise from the localities 
respectively referred to. The former method of computation would 
naturally proceed from an author living in Judea ; the latter from one 
living in Babylon. 

Contradictions betiveen the writers of the New Testament. 

The most serious differences occur in the Gospels. It is ob- 
vious that the Evangelists did not intend to relate the various par- 
ticulars connected with the life and death of Jesus in chronological 
order. Their notices of time are generally indefinite. None follows 
throughout the proper sequence of events. All attempts to bring 
the four narratives into compact and natural union — to settle the 
time when a discourse was delivered or the place where a miracle was 
wrought, must partake of uncertainty. We do not think it possible 
to make out a full and complete harmony of the Gospels. The 
sacred authors intended to give no more than portions of the life 
of Christ, in no regular order or connection. Each follows his own 
plan independently of the other, giving such facts and discourses as 
were accordant with his leading purpose. It is therefore beyond 



Passages apparently contradictory. 529 

the reach of human ability to construct a complete,, harmonious nar- 
rative out of the four. 1 

Matt. ii. 1 — 23. \ There is a chronological discrepancy here. 

Luke ii. 22 — 39. J In Matthew there is no mention of the pre- 
sentation in the temple. The parents of Jesus at Bethlehem receive 
the visit of the Magi, and fly thence into Egypt, from which they 
afterwards return to Galilee. 

Luke has nothing of the visit of the Magi and the flight into 
Egypt, but represents the parents as going to Jerusalem to ofler the 
child in the temple, and afterwards returning to Galilee. 

" The Magi must have been at Bethlehem," says Schleiermacher, 
" before Jesus's presentation ; for not only does Luke make the parents 
return immediately after that ceremony to Nazareth, but, according 
to his statement of the whole transaction, there is not the slightest 
conceivable motive for a fresh prolonged stay in the strange town of 
Bethlehem. No ground for the supposition either of employment in 
Bethlehem, or of an intention to settle there, is afforded by Luke's 
narrative, or even consistent with it ; and all its vividness is destroyed 
if we imagine that Joseph's return to Bethlehem was merely 
omitted. . . . The point must be allowed to be clear, when we take 
into the account, that Joseph went to Bethlehem solely on account 
of the registry, how ill Mary was accommodated there in her labour, 
and how reluctant they must have been to undergo the fatigue of 
a double journey. Now had the Magi arrived before the present- 
ation, in that case, considering how near Bethlehem was to Jerusa- 
lem, intelligence would certainly have reached the former place of 
Herod's inquiries after the birth-place of the Messiah, and that the 
Magi discovered it by the direction thence obtained. Moreover, the 
Magi must have had the dream which warned them against returning 
to Jerusalem at Bethlehem, and it is much more probable that they 
related, than that they suppressed it. Must not Joseph now, consi- 
dering Herod's notorious character, have conceived suspicion from 
these circumstances, and abandoned the wholly needless journey to 
Jerusalem? The flight into Egypt therefore is indeed very na- 
turally connected with the visit of the Magi, and the attention it 
excited . . . but the journey to Jerusalem is inconsistent with it." x 

"We are inclined to place the presentation in the temple before the 
arrival of the Magi. The difficulty in the way of this view is 
Luke ii. 39., where it is related that after the presentation his parents 
returned into Galilee, to their own city Nazareth. Here is the 
place for inserting the return of Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem 
where the Magi visited them, whence they fled into Egypt. Does 
Luke's previous account of the compulsory nature of the stay Avhich 
Joseph and Mary made at Bethlehem, and the inconveniences to which 
they were subjected there, exclude the idea of their ha vino- returned 
thither ? So Schleiermacher and his translator argue. 2 But we are 

1 Critical Essay on the Gospel of St. Luke, translated, pp. 46, 47. 

2 See the Translator's note, p. 316. 

VOL. II. M M 



530 Biblical Interpretation. 

too much in the dark as to many conceivable circumstances to be 
warranted in drawing this conclusion. Various causes may have led 
Joseph and Mary to return, of which we are wholly ignorant. Even 
when they returned from Egypt, they intended to take up their abode 
in Bethlehem (Matt. ii. 22.), and therefore it is not so remarkable 
that they should have gone to it and not Nazareth after the present- 
ation. If the words of Luke in ii. 39. be rigorously pressed and 
urged, the difficulty of inserting intervening events will appear in- 
superable ; but we regard them as loose and inexact. They must 
not be taken with precision, but viewed as indefinite. 

Matt. ii. 1 " Luke supposes every where that before the birth of 
Luke ii. J Jesus, which took place only accidentally at Bethle- 
hem, Joseph and Mary lived at Nazareth. Matthew, on the con- 
trary, knows nothing of any accidental cause of the birth happening 
at Bethlehem, and clearly supposes that Joseph, but for the inter- 
vention of some particular circumstances, would have returned to 
Judea after his flight, and therefore manifestly takes that, and not 
Galilee, to have been his usual place of abode. All attempts to 
reconcile these two contradictory statements seem only elaborate 
efforts of art, to which one should not needlessly resort, or indeed 
should rather give no explanation at all." 1 So Schleiermacher rea- 
sons. So too Meyer and others. 

Joseph was led by the census to Bethlehem, where he settled down 
or determined to settle. Hence Matthew represents it as his dwell- 
ing place. But the flight to Egypt soon broke off his settlement 
there, so that it became in reality a temporary one. Hence Luke 
regards his subsequent settlement in Galilee as a return to the 
place of his abode. Such is the substance of the solution given by 
Neander, Ebrard, Hofmann, Krabbe, and Lange. Nor has Wieseler 
succeeded better than they. 2 We have none other to offer, though 
we confess to some dissatisfaction with it. Perhaps Luke and Mat- 
thew followed different traditions with respect to the birth and 
infancy of Jesus. Each relates certain circumstances, knowing none 
other, because the one tradition had various forms. 

Matt. iv. 1 — 11. 1 The temptations of our Lord are recorded by 
Luke iv. 2 — 12. J Matthew in a different order from Luke's. 
The former gives as the second temptation that of vanity, and the 
third that of ambition or worldly grandeur; while Luke gives the 
second ambition, and the third vanity. The order in Matthew 
seems to be the correct one, for on the contrary supposition the 
second temptation would have rendered the third superfluous. 
Schleiermacher accounts for the order in Luke as arising from the 
reflection how improbable it was that Christ should have first gone 
out of the wilderness to Jerusalem, and thence again to the high 
mountain, when the mountain and the Avilderness might rather be 
supposed to be near each other. Hence Luke's order has reference 
to the outward aspect of the temptations. 

1 Critical Essay, &c, translated, p. 48., with the Translator's note, p. 317. 
Chronologische Synopse dcr vier Evangelien, p. 35. ct seqq. 



apparently contradictory . 531 

Matt. viii. 5 — 10. 1 Luke is minute and circumstantial; Matthew 

Luke vii. 1 — 10. J brief. According to the latter the centurion 

sends the elders of the JeAvs to Jesus ; according to Luke he goes in 

pei'son. This is explained by the principle qui facit per alteram 

facit per se. 

Matt. xvii. 1. "I Matthew reckons inclusively, Luke exclusively. 
Luke ix. 28. J So Chrysostom, Jerome, and Theophylact, fol- 
lowed by most recent expositors. 

Matt. xx. 29 — 34. "| Matthew speaks of two blind persons, Mark 
Mark x. 46 — 52. > and Luke of one only. Mark calls him Bar- 
Luke xviii. 35 — 43. J timeus. Luke represents the miracle as per- 
formed when Jesus was approaching Jericho, before he entered it; 
Matthew and Mark after he had left Jericho. 

1. Newcome supposes that Jesus remained several days at 
Jericho, and during his stay made several excursions from the city 
and returned to it again. This is purely conjecture, though it intro- 
duces what removes the contradiction. 

2. The verb iyyi^siv, to draw near, used by Luke, is equivalent to 
to be near. Hence the language of Luke may include also the idea 
expressed by Matthew and Mark, i. e. while he was still near the 
city. Grotius and Passow both give this meaning to the verb, 
and Robinson undertakes to supply what they left undone, viz. to 
sustain it by examples in the New Testament and Septuagint. 1 
But he has been able to produce no instance from the former. 
Luke xix. 29. is not a proper one, compared with Matt. xxi. 1. : and 
as to the tropical usage in Phil. ii. 3. that is inapplicable. The 
usage of the LXX. however is definite and clear. They frequently 
employ it for the Hebrew 3Vij3, near. The preposition sis after the 
verb, prefixed to the name of the place, appears to us to show very 
clearly that Luke meant to say that Jesus was approaching Jericho. 
Surely another preposition would have been used had the idea been 
that Jesus was near Jericho, leaving it. The proposed interpretation 
is unnatural and forced. 

3. Sieffert, Ebrard, Wieseler, and others think that Matthew 
combined two separate healings, one of which, viz. Mark's, was per- 
formed as Jesus left Jericho, the other, viz. Luke's, as he was abou 
to enter it. It is certainly Matthew's manner to combine events in 
this way ; but if we allow the union of the two separate occurrences 
we are still compelled to admit some inaccuracy in his representation, 
because he says that both were performed as Jesus was departing 
from Jericho. 

4. Another solution we shall give in the words in which it was 
proposed: " Taking the account of Matthew in connection with 
Mark's, we believe that there were in reality two blind men, both 
restored to sight by Christ as he passed from Jericho to Jerusa- 
lem. Let us now attend to what Luke says. As Jesus drew nigh to 
Jericho, a certain blind man sat by the wayside begging. There is 
no ground for supposing that this blind man was the same as Barti- 

VO.L.. > See Notes to Greek Harmopy. 

M M 2 



532 Biblical Interpretation. 

meus mentioned by Mark. He is not so called. It is not said that 
he was Bartimeus. We believe that he was a different person. The 
reason of this opinion is, that Bartimeus is said to have been healed 
by Christ as he left J ericho ; whereas the blind beggar noticed in 
Luke's Gospel received his sight from our Saviour drawing nigh to 
the city. Thus there is no contradiction between the narratives of 
the three Evangelists. Matthew relates that Christ performed the 
remarkable miracle of giving sight to two blind men who sat begging 
by the wayside as he departed from Jericho, and we believe him. 
Mark notices but one of these, whose name he gives ; but he does 
not say that Christ on that occasion healed no more than one. His 
account therefore is not contradictory to Matthew's, though it is not 
so full. Luke again informs us, that the Saviour before entering 
Jericho, healed a poor blind man who cried unto him. This last 
individual was wholly different from either of those mentioned by 
Matthew. Taking therefore the narratives of the three Evangelists 
together, we perceive from them that three blind men received their 
sight from Christ during his visit to Jericho — one before he entered 
it, and two others as he left it." 1 

We are not satisfied now with this solution, for the following 
reasons. 

(<z.-) It is most natural to identify the blind man in Luke with the 
blind man in Matthew, not to assume their diversity. 

(p.) It is not natural to suppose that though Matthew speaks of 
two blind men, none of them is identical with him spoken of by 
Luke. We are therefore compelled to confess our inability to re- 
concile the contradictions of the Evangelists in this place. If we 
adopted any of the solutions, it would be the third. Mark's graphic 
account, in which the very name of the blind man is given, must 
have been derived from an eye-witness. Luke's statement also bears 
the internal character of accuracy. Hence the combination of the 
two by Matthew or rather his translator, is the most probable. 

Matt. xxi. 38. "] The last three passages seem to contradict the first. 
Acts iii. 17. I But the first being a parable, makes it unnecessary 
„ xiii. 27. j to apply all the circumstances literally to Christ 
1 Cor. ii. 8. J which are spoken of the heir. 

Matt. xxvi. 6., &c. 1 Here we have the story of a woman who 
Mark xiv. 3., &c. \ anointed our Lord, from the different Evan- 
John xii. 1., &c. J gelists. No critic denies that Matthew and 
Mark relate the same occurrence. As to John's narrative, it was once 
not unusual to hold that it referred to a different transaction. Origen, 
Chrysostom, Euthymius Zygabenus, Osiander, Lightfoot, Wolnus, 
and others thought so; but no harmonist does so now, not even 
Greswell. 

The following discrepancies appear in the three narratives. 
1. According to John, the unction took place six days before the 
passover ; but, according to Matthew and Mark, two days previously 
to the feast. (See Matt. xxvi. 2. ; Mark xiv. 1. ; John xii. 1.) 

1 Sacred Hermeneutics, pp. 558, 559. 



Passages apparently contradictory. 533 

2. According to the first two Evangelists, the supper was in the 
house of Simon, formerly a leper. But John merely says, " they 
made him a supper," &c. The most natural supposition is that it 
was in the house of Martha and Mary, since Mai'tha waited at the 
table, a thing which belonged to the hostess ; and Lazarus was one 
of those that sat at meat. 

3. According to the first two Evangelists, Mary anointed the head 
of Jesus ; according to John, the feet. 

4. Matthew and Mark say that the disciples disapproved of the 
deed. John however speaks only of Judas Iscariot grumbling at it. 

1. With regard to the first, some think that Matthew (and Mark) 
does not follow the order of time. They would therefore place this 
visit of Jesus to Bethany before the time noticed in Matt. xxvi. 2. 
So Ebrard. But this is contrary to the language in the four- 
teenth verse, tots iropsvOsis, which connects the visit of Judas to the 
chief priests immediately with the supper. Others again, as Robinson, 
think that John anticipates the time of the supper at Bethany, in 
order to bring together and complete all he had to say further of 
Bethany. Accordingly, this harmonist, following Matthew and Mark, 
puts the supper on the evening of Wednesday ; while John appa- 
rently, as he supposes, places it on Sunday, the evening after the 
Jewish sabbath. We do not think either solution satisfactory, and 
are unable to reconcile the times given by Matthew and Mark on 
the one hand, compared with John on the other. 

2. The supper was at Bethany. It is possible to solve this dis- 
crepancy by supposing that Simon was a friend or relative of the 
family of Lazarus and his sisters ; or he may have been the husband 
of Martha. In any case it is not so apparent as Robinson imagines, 
that the entertainment was not in the house of Lazarus because it is 
said he was one of them who reclined at the table ; for Simon, La- 
zarus, Martha, and Mary may have lived in the same house, if, as is 
not improbable, Simon was the husband of Martha. On the whole 
there is no contradiction here between the three Evangelists. Yet 
Meyer thinks that the name Simon in the narratives of Matthew 
and Mark was originally taken from Luke vii., where a similar unc- 
tion is recorded, the tradition followed by those Evangelists havino- 
received various disturbing particulars out of the transaction re- 
corded by Luke. 

3. The anointing of the head recorded by Matthew and Mark, and 
of the feet by John, are not inconsistent. The woman may have 
anointed both. The latter unction was uncommon. It was an ex- 
traordinary mark of reverence and respect ; while the anointing of 
the head at entertainments was usual. Here again Meyer thinks 
that the tradition followed by Matthew and Mark was ignorant of 
the foot-unction. 

4. There is no opposition between the three in this particular, 
though John's is the more definite and particular account. 

Wherever the narratives clash, as in 1., we prefer following John's, 
since he was an eye-witness. The others are less exact. 

We have not regarded Luke vii. 36., &c, as a parallel account of 

• M M 3 



534 Biblical Interpretation. 

the same anointing, though Chrysostom, Grotius, Schleiennacher, 
Strauss, Weisse, Ewald, Middleton, look upon it as another de- 
scription of the same. But the time, place, circumstances, and per- 
son, seem undoubtedly to be different. Hence even Meyer regards 
them as separate and distinct. The difficulties are insuperable on 
the hypothesis of their identity. 

Matt. xxvi. 8. "| Here Matthew expresses indefinitely what John 

John xii. 4. J states with exactness. 

Matt. xxvi. 21. 1 Here some think there is a discrepancy between 

Luke xxii. 21. J Matthew and Mark compared with Luke. The 
first two Evangelists intimate that our Saviour indicated the disciple 
by whom he was to be betrayed while eating the passover ; whereas 
in Luke he did so after the institution of the supper. Matthew and 
Mark agree in stating that the traitor was pointed out during the 
passover and before the institution of the eucharist. They insert 
the record of the Saviour's conversation respecting the traitor at the 
time it took place, thus carrying on all the circumstances together 
and reserving nothing till the account of the passover and eucharist 
should be finished. But Luke relates in immediate consecution the 
participation of the passover and eucharist, reserving the notice of 
the traitor till afterwards. Hence, in placing the institution of the 
eucharist before the pointing out of the traitor, he puts it out of its 
proper order. He anticipates. 

Matt. xxvi. 17 — 20. ] The first three Evangelists relate that on 

Mark xiv. 12—17. I the night before Jesus suffered, he partook 

Luke xxii. 7 — 15. J of the passover. 

John xiii. 1., &c. &c. J In like manner John speaks of Jesus 
celebrating a supper on that night, which must be the same because 
the circumstances are alike. There can be little doubt that in John 
xiii. 1., &c, the very same supper is described as in the passages from 
the first three Evangelists. The legal period at which the passover 
was celebrated was the 14th of Nisan. Hence we infer that Jesus 
kept the passover on the night of Thursday the 14th of Nisan. 
Such is the plain conclusion to which the accounts in the first three 
Gospels directly lead. But the narrative of John presents serious 
obstacles in the way of this statement. This apostle says, nrpb tt} 
£opTi]9 rou iraayu at the very beginning of his description of the 
supper. Hence it could not have been the paschal supper which 
Jesus then partook of. Again, he says that the Jews who brought 
the Saviour to Pilate the morning after the supper would not enter 
the judgment-hall lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat 
the passover. Thirdly, the morning after the supper is called the pre- 
paration of the passover, the day on which Christ suffered. Fourthly, 
in the course of the supper, the feast is supposed to be still future : 
" Buy those things that we have need of against the feast." Fifthly, 
amid the deliberations relating to the disposal of Jesus, Pilate 
speaks of the passover as either at hand or just begun that morn- 
ing, but not yet past : " Ye have a custom that I should release unto 
you one at the passover." Sixthly, the day after the crucifixion being 
the Jewish sabbath, and called a great day, must have been so styled 



Passages apparently contradictory* 535 

because it coincided with the first day of the festival, or the 15th 
of Nisan. Such are the chief points in John's Gospel which go to 
show that Jesus celebrated the paschal supper on the 13th of Nisan, 
not on the 14th as the first three Evangelists relate. 

This is the most perplexing discrepancy in the Gospels. "When 
we consider that the apostles were present — eye-witnesses of the 
occurrence — partakers of the supper they speak of — it seems to us 
impossible that there can be an irreconcilable contradiction between 
Matthew and John. Yet able writers like Meyer and Bleek assume 
here an absolute contradiction ; and the necessity of the case may 
perhaps exempt them from censure ; but we cannot believe that the 
understandings or memories of the apostles were of a kind to mis- 
apprehend a matter of fact like the present. They must have known 
and remembered the event. It was a memorable evening, the solemn 
occurrences of which must have made a lasting impression on their 
minds and hearts. How could any of them ever mistake or forget 
the very night on which they partook of the last supper with the 
Saviour — on which he was betrayed into the hands of sinners ? 
Among the various ways of removing this contradiction, two claim 
the decided preference. 

1st. That our Lord antedated by one day the true time of the 
passover. He had, it is conceived, special reasons for so doing. 

2nd. That the expressions of John, which appear to show that the 
passover was still to come, are capable of such interpretations as con- 
sist with the legal day of the passover, the day indicated by the 
other Evangelists. 

Greswell may be taken as the ablest representative of the first 
view ; and Robinson has brought together from various quarters and 
set in order skilfully all that can well be said to explain John's lan- 
guage consistently with that of the synoptists. 

The most intractable passage in the hands of those who take the 
second view is undoubtedly that in John xviii. 28., but that they 
might eat the passover, implying that on the clay of the crucifixion the 
paschal supper had not yet been eaten. The method in which it is 
treated by writers like Robinson and Luthardt is to give the ex- 
pression <f)ayelv to irda^a a wide sense, either to keep the passover 
festival, comprising the seven days of unleavened bread ; or to eat the 
paschal sacrifices, i. e. the voluntary peace- and thank-offerings made 
during the paschal festival. 

A serious objection to this extended acceptation of irda^a with 
(f>ayslv is the fact that in every case where the same phrase occurs, 
whether in the New Testament or the LXX., it denotes specifically 
eating of the paschal supper. Such as oppose this wide acceptation 
allege that it is not only necessary to show that the word irda-^a by 
itself may denote the passover festival, but that (paysiv to nrda-^a may 
refer to the whole festival, or specially to the sacrifices which formed 
a part of the ceremonial of the seven days' feast. This cannot be 
done. 

Next to this is the phrase nrapao-Ksv^ rod irdcfya in John xix. 14., 

MM 4 



536 Biblical Interpretation. 

which is referred by many to the Jewish sabbath that occurred the 
next day. In this way John harmonises with the rest. 

We must decline entering on the minute consideration of this 
perplexing question, especially as it is copiously treated in the first 
volume of my Introduction to the New Testament. The difficulties 
are very great against the most approved mode of harmonising John 
with the synoptists. We do not think the method of interpretation 
in regard to these two passages in John (which are the strongest 
in favour of his speaking of the paschal supper), considered the 
most plausible, is satisfactory. The objections it is liable to are 
forcible. We need not state them on the present occasion, as there 
is not space to enter into the whole question ; nor have we any solu- 
tion different from those that have been proposed by others. The 
contradiction must be regarded as still unremoved from the Gospels. 
We want farther light on the point; being persuaded that there 
must be a strict agreement between the different Evangelists on a 
matter of fact like the present. 

The English reader may be referred to Robinson, who, adopting 
the method of conciliation most in favour at the present time, has 
carefully arranged the statements found in Tholuck, Olshausen, 
Guericke, Jahn, Hengstenberg, Kern, Baumgarten-Crusius, Ebrard, 
Wieseler, Von Ammon, and others. He regards the evidence adduced 
as decisive in favour of the Evangelists' perfect agreement, and won- 
ders at the language of De Wette who maintains the contradiction. 
But De Wette and those who agree with him, Liicke, Bleek, Meyer, 
Sieffert, Hase, Winer, Neander, have made objections to the solu- 
tion adopted by Robinson which he has not answered or removed ; 
so that there is no cause for speaking positively on the matter ; and 
we knoio that Tholuck, one of the ablest exponents of Robinson's 
method of conciliation, has abandoned it through the force of Weit- 
zel's arguments. It were therefore to be wished that the learned 
American harmonist had spoken less confidently of his solution, as 
long as many good judges of evidence reckon it neither sufficient 
nor natural. If we believed that a real contradiction existed here 
between the synoptists and John, we should undoubtedly give the 
preference to the latter, as Neander does. 

Matt, xxvii. 34. 1 Matthew has vinegar mingled with gall ; Mark, 

Mark xv. 23. J wine mingled with myrrh. In Matthew, Lach- 
mann reads olvov instead of 6%os, wine for vinegar. But this 
makes little difference, as the latter word means a poor, cheap, acid 
wine. The difference lies in the accounts mingled with gall (Matt.) ; 
'mingled with myrrh (Mark). Wine mingled with myrrh was given 
to criminals to stupify them. Michaelis, Eichhorn, and others sup- 
pose that the Greek translator of Matthew mistook the Chaldee 
words. Meyer thinks that we have the trace of a later tradition in 
Matthew which converted myrrh into gall from a reminiscence of 
Psal. lxix. 22. In harmony with this idea, Matthew represents the 
Saviour as refusing the drink because of its bad taste ; while Mark. 
Bays that he did not even taste it because he would not be rendered 
insensible to pain. The later tradition converted the presentation of 



Passages apparently contradictory. 537 

the drink into an affront and ill treatment. There is much to favour 
this solution. If it be rejected, we do not see any satisfactory mode 
of solving the contradiction. 

Matt, xxvii. 44. \ Here the plural is used indefinitely by Matthew. 
Luke xxiii. 39. J Luke has the singular, which is precise. It is 
unnecessary and unnatural to resort to the hypothesis of the older 
harmonists that both at first reviled Jesus, but afterwards only one. 
Matt, xxvii. 54. 1 One way of removing the apparent contradiction 
Luke xxiii. 47. J is, that in the former text the sentence uttered 
by the centurion and them that were with him is given ; while in the 
latter we have the words uttered by the centurion alone. The cen- 
turion gave expression to both phrases, while each of the two Evan- 
gelists has only given one of them. This solution is artificial and 
forced. When Luke states the exclamation of the centurion to be, 
certainly this ivas a righteous man, he gives in his own way the 
exclamation which Matthew represents to be, truly this was the Son 
of God. They were not two different utterances of the centurion, 
but one and the same, the diversity being attributable to the respec- 
tive writers who give only the substance, not the ipsissima verba. 
Matt. xxvi. 69., &c."l That Peter denied his Master thrice is af- 
Mark xiv. 66., &c. [firmed by all the Evangelists. In this respect 
Luke xxii. 54., &c. J they agree. But in regard to various de- 
John xviii. 15., &c. J tails connected with these denials, there is a 
perplexing difference. Here it is difficult to reconcile the first three 
Gospels with themselves, and with the fourth. The occasions which 
gave rise to the denials, and the localities where they took place, 
appear to clash. 

1st. As to the place of Peter's three denials. The first three 
Evangelists relate that Jesus was led away bound to Caiaphas, the 
high priest, before whom, or in whose palace, the denials took place. 
But John appears to say that they happened in the house of Annas, 
father-in-law of Caiaphas. 

Some resort to transposition. Thus Robinson says, that Peter 
thrice denied Jesus before Caiaphas, Matt. xxvi. 57, 58, 69 — 75. ; 
Mark xiv. 53,54, 66—72. ; Luke xxii. 54—62. ; John xviii. 13—18, 
25 — 27. He places John xviii. 19 — 24. after the three denials, when 
Jesus was before Caiaphas and the Sanhedrim, and renders the aorist 
cnrsaTsiXcv in John xviii. 24. by the pluperfect had sent, because he 
thinks it belongs to the time prior to Jesus's first appearance before 
Caiaphas. But the ovv connected with airsaTsiXsv, or 8s which others 
read, or teal, is adverse to this rendering. The right reading appears 
to us to be ovv which Lachmann exhibits. It is the more difficult 
one. As and /cal are mere corrections. If the true reading were 
aireo-TSiXsv simply, without a particle or conjunction, we should adopt 
the opinion of those who render the verb in the pluperfect tense, and 
refer the act to a point of time prior to the connection in which it 
stands ; but though Tischendorf has the verb alone, we believe that 
the omission of ovv arose from the perceived difficulty. On the other 
hand, Roediger arranges John xviii. 19 — 24. as before Annas, after 
Peter had first denied Jesus before Caiaphas ; while he places Peter's 



538 Biblical Interpretation. 

second and third denials before Caiaplias and the Sanhedrim, contrary 
to Robinson's method. Clausen, again, places the three denials of 
Peter in the palace of Annas, after which Jesus was led away to 
Caiaphas. Thus John xviii. 19 — 24. are a kind of parenthesis, show- 
ing that the second and third denials took place while Jesus was 
being interrogated. Clausen follows John, correcting the other 
three by him, for he admits that they refer Peter's denials to the 
house of Caiaphas. 1 Others believe that the examination before 
Annas, to whose house Jesus was first taken, was preliminary and 
informal. In conducting him thither the band seemed to have acted 
of their own accord. And John xviii. 12 — 24. is an account of this 
hearing, omitted by the other Evangelists. The mention of Annas as 
the high priest is not an insuperable objection, because he was his 
vicar, the next in dignity to him, and vice-president of the Sanhedrim. 
Here Peter's first denial is put in the house of Annas. But since the 
18th and 25th verses of John xviii. show that Peter was in the same 
place when he made his second and third denials, it is here assumed 
that Annas and Caiaphas occupied the same house or palace. The 
words of John xviii. 24. are an insuperable objection to this assump- 
tion, " Annas sent him bound to Caiaphas," which could hardly be 
predicated of persons living in the same house. 

Here we are obliged to confess that the examinations of Jesus as 
to place and order in connection with the denials of Peter cannot be 
satisfactorily arranged out of the four Gospels. We want some par- 
ticulars which would probably make them all clear and plain. John 
appears to place the first denial before Annas ; the second and third 
before Caiaphas ; while the first three Evangelists place all before 
Caiaphas. 

2nd. According to Matthew, Peter was sitting without, in the 
hall, when he was charged by a maid servant with being one of 
Jesus's followers, and denied it. According to Mark, Peter was in 
the same place, when challenged by the maid servant, which gave 
rise to his first denial. Luke's relation agrees substantially. Ac- 
cording to John, it was the porteress who challenged him on this 
occasion. But this apostle represents him as standing and warming 
himself. Matthew and Luke say he was sitting at the fire. The 
four differ slightly in the words the maid is represented as addressing 
to him, and more materially in the answer he gives to her. Matthew 
has ovk ol8a ri Xi<y£is, " I know not what thou sayest ; " Mark ovk 
ol&a ovSs £7rl(TTa[jbaL ti o~v Xsysis, " I know not neither understand I 
what thou sayest ; " but Luke has ovk olBa avrov, " I know him 
not ; " while John has ovk sI/lll, " I am not." 

3rd. When he had gone out into the porch, another maid saw him 
and charged him with being one of Jesus's followers, but he denied 
with an oath. Such is Matthew's account. According to Mark, the 
same maid saw him again, and said that he was one of them, and he 
denied again. Luke represents him as challenged by another person, 
a male however, which led to his denial of Jesus. According to 

1 Quatuor cvangeliorura tabula Synoptical, pp. 158, 159. 



Passages apparently contradictory. 539 

John, he was standing and warming himself, when they said (slirov), 
" Art not thou also one of his disciples ?" to whom he replied, " I am 
not." Here Mark is at variance with Matthew and John. It will 
not do to say that the one maid who spoke to Peter twice is only one 
of the two mentioned by Matthew, there being three challenges of 
Peter, one from one maid and two from another. John speaks 
definitely as an eyewitness of the damsel that kept the door. If we 
suppose that the same maid challenged Peter again, then Matthew's 
dXXr], another maid, is wrong. The two are certainly at variance in 
regard to the damsel. Which is right, or whether either be so, John 
does not afford us the means of knowing, because he speaks generally 
and vaguely of the occasion which led to the second denial. 

Are Matthew and Mark at variance also in relation to the place ? 
The former says that Peter had gone out into the porch, Trvkoiva; the 
latter into the irpoavkiov, porch. Robinson and others tell us that 
these are the same, but this is incorrect. They were different places. 
If we separate Mark xiv. 69. from verse 68., joining the latter to 
what precedes, as Roediger does, we might conjecture that Mark's 
narrative does not imply where Peter was, for he may have altered 
his position before the maid addressed him again. We confess, how- 
ever, that this conjecture is not probable, and see no method ot 
reconciling on this point Matthew and Mark except by affirming 
that one of them speaks loosely and inexactly, both meaning the same 
spot by ttvXoov and irpoavkiov. 

Matthew and John disagree. While the one states that Peter had 
gone out into the porch, the latter that he was standing and warming 
himself as before. If however Peter were in the Trpoavkiov of Mark, 
the heat of the fire might reach him, and so Mark substantially 
accords with John. Hence Matthew's 7rv\.a>v is inexact. 

4th. After a little the bystanders challenged Peter, and he denied 
again. So Matthew asserts. The statement of Mark is almost the 
same. But Luke says, that after the lapse of an hour, some other 
person vehemently insisted that Peter was with Jesus, because he 
was a Galilean ; while John affirms that a relation of him whose ear 
Peter had cut offsaid, " Did I not see thee in the garden with him?" 
and he denied. Here John distinctly affirms that the kinsman of 
him whose ear had been cut off challenges Peter because he had seen 
him in the garden ; whereas the other three challenge him because his 
dialect icas Galilean. Matthew and Mark all but coincide in regard 
to the words Peter said, " I know not the man ; " but Luke has, " I 
know not what thou sayest." 

The preceding details connected with the denials of Peter are such 
as no harmonist has been able to bring into exact accordance with one 
another. The second and third denials are absolutely intractable. 
It is insufficient to say with many harmonists, including Greswell, 
that on each of these occasions more parties than one taxed Peter 
simultaneously with his relation to Jesus, to whom he made answer 
in general terms at once. John was an eyewitness of the scenes, and 
the only one among the Evangelists. His description bears all the 
marks of «iinute accuracy. On the first occasion he says it was the 



540 Biblical Interpretation. 

porteress who challenged Peter ; on the third, that it was one of the 
high-priest's servants, a relative of him whose ear had been cut off 
by Peter, and who saw him in the garden. With regard to the 
occasion of the second denial alone, he speaks indefinitely : " They 
said therefore to him." We may infer that here he could not from 
his knowledge and observation speak more particularly. In conse- 
quence of John's presence at these scenes, we must follow his narra- 
tive in preference to the others, where there is disagreement. Those 
who resort to a great number of denials, perhaps eight, as Paulus 
assumes, are opposed by our Lord's words to Peter : " This night, 
before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice." It is a mere 
evasion when Ebrard resorts to three groups of questions. We be- 
lieve that the variation in the accounts is owing to the differences 
in the tradition followed by the writers. The traditional narrative 
of the three denials had received several modifications in its progress. 
The details were unfolded in different ways which did not sometimes 
harmonise with one another. 

Mark xv. 25. "I Here Mark expressly states that the time of cruci- 

John xix. 14. J fixion was the third hour, while John affirms that 
Christ was brought forth about the sixth hour. 

It is very difficult to harmonise these accounts. Indeed it is dif- 
ficult to make John's agree with his own context. If it was twelve 
o'clock at noon it is difficult to see how the transactions connected 
with the condemnation of Jesus could have lasted so long, since he 
had been brought very early to Pilate. Too little time is also allowed 
for hanging on the cross. 

Some suppose that John follows the Roman computation of hours, 
beginning with midnight. So Rettig, Tholuck, and others. But 
this is quite improbable, for then six o'clock in the morning allows 
too little time for the previous occurrences. It is not likely that his 
condemnation and all its attendant circumstances were over before 
six o'clock in the morning. 

Townson thinks that John's computation of hours in his Gospel 
agrees neither with the Jewish nor the Roman, but with the modern. 
This is utterly improbable. 

A more probable solution proceeds on the principle that the 
twenty-four hours were divided into eight parts of three hours each ; 
four parts making the day, and four the night. Mark designates 
the second division by its commencement, John by its close. Both 
their expressions refer to the one division of time, viz. that from 
the third to the sixth hour of the morning. But it is very unlikely 
that they should have employed opposite methods to describe the 
same space of tine. It is true that John says " it was about the 
sixth hour," as if it was not precisely or exactly that hour ; but the 
word coast, about, was superfluous on the assumption that he intended 
to mark only the division from the third to the sixth hour. Hence 
we cannot adopt this solution. 

Others affirm that the true reading in John is rplri]. If numbers 
were formerly written with numeral letters, it is said that F and r , 
representing three and six respectively, might have been exchanged. 



Passages apparently contradictory. 541 

Grotius however denies that numbers were so expressed ; and there 
is little similarity between them. The weight of evidence consisting 
of MSS. and versions is decidedly favourable to skttj. No critical 
editor has ventured to remove it from the text ; and it is much easier 
to account for the introduction of rplrr] into the text than sktt]. The 
discrepancy no doubt suggested the former. Hence the difficult 
reading should be preferred. We are inclined therefore to think 
that the reading in John should not be disturbed. 

All the circumstances of the narrative favour the correctness of the 
time specified by Mark. We must therefore abide by it as the cor- 
rect time. If so, the sixth hour of John cannot be correct. It must 
either be changed into third for sixth, agreeably to the reading in 
various authorities, or be looked upon as an original mistake, of no 
consequence in so trivial a matter. 

Matt, xxvii. 37. "1 The inscription put on the cross over the head 

Mark xv. 26. I of the Saviour is differently given by the four 

Luke xxiii. 38. j Evangelists. It is probable that John furnishes 

John xix. 19. J the very words which were written in Greek, 

for he says, " Pilate wrote a title and put it on the cross ; and the 

writing was, Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jeics (xix. 19.). But 

as John also says that it was Avritten not only in Greek but in 

Hebrew and Latin, we need not expect to find the very same words 

in all the writers. Perhaps Matthew gives the Hebrew inscription, 

or rather a translation of it. Mark gives the Latin. Luke nearly 

agrees with Mark. 

The circumstances of our Lord's resurrection next claim particular 
attention. The truth of his resurrection forms the main pillar on 
which the divine authority of Christianity rests. Hence it is of great 
advantage to the cause of truth to harmonise the accounts of this 
event. But as none of the four is complete in itself — each following 
his own method, — we must expect difficulties in the subject. Some 
links are wanting to complete the whole. Besides, it should be 
remembered that the last fifteen verses of Mark were not written by 
himself. They are a later appendix to his Gospel, and increase the 
difficulty of harmonising the accounts very considerably. 

1. Very early in the morning on the first day of the week, before 
it was light, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, 
Salome, Johanna, and other women, set out to see the sepulchre of 
their Lord. (Matt, xxviii. 1. ; Mark xvi. 1, 2. ; Luke xxiv. 1. ; John 
xx. 1, 2.) John mentions only Mary Magdalene. Matthew men- 
tions two ; Mark three ; Luke one, with the remark that there were 
others. They brought with them spices to embalm the body, which 
they had bought on Saturday evening after the sabbath was past. 

2. About early dawn, whether before or after the women set out 
we cannot tell, there was a great earthquake, the angel of the Lord 
descending from heaven and rolling away the great stone from the 
door of the tomb. At this time the Lord arose from the dead. (Matt. 
xxviii. 2, 3, 4.) 

3. As the women drew near the sepulchre they said among them- 
selves, " Who shall roll away for us the stone from the door of the 



542 Biblical Interpretation. 

sepulchre? but when they came and looked they saw that it had 
been already rolled away." Mark says that the time when they 
arrived at the sepulchre was sunrise ; but this does not agree with 
the other three, especially John, who marks the time when it teas yet 
dark. (Mark xvi. 2, 3, 4. ; Luke xxiv. 1,2.; John xx. 1.) 

4. The women entered into the tomb, but found not the body of 
Jesus. At this they were greatly perplexed. (Mark xvi. 5. ; Luke 
xxiv. 3, 4.) 

5. As soon as Mary Magdalene knew that the body had been 
removed, without staying or deliberating farther she left her com- 
panions in the sepulchre and hastily ran back to tell Peter and John 
that the body had been taken away. (John xx. 1, 2.) 

6. After she was gone two angels appeared in the sepulchre to 
the women, and addressed them in encouraging language, command- 
ing them to tell the disciples that Jesus was gone before into Galilee, 
where they should find him. (Mark xvi. 5, 6, 7. ; Matt, xxviii. 5, 
6, 7. ; Luke xxiv. 4, 5, 6, 7.) Matthew and Mark speak only of 
one angel; but Luke of two. This circumstance however is not 
contradictory. But the language of Matthew creates very great 
difficulty, because the angel he mentions was sitting outside the door 
of the tomb on the stone which he had rolled away. We have no 
good reason for supposing that the angel spoken of by Mark was 
different from Matthew's ; and both Mark and Luke expressly men- 
tion that the women entered the tomb before they saw the angel or 
angels. Michaelis ingeniously conjectures that the angel in Matthew 
had withdrawn into the tomb before the arrival of the women ; but 
this is contrary to the fifth verse, whence it would appear that he 
was still outside, and addressed the women before they entered. We 
are totally unable to harmonise what Matthew says of the angel 
with the accounts of Mark and Luke. 

7. After the words of the angel, the Avomen fled from the sepul- 
chre with fear and great joy to tell the disciples of Christ. (Matt, 
xxviii. 8. ; Mark xvi. 8.) 

8. Mary Magdalene having come to Peter and John says to them, 
" They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and Ave know 
not Avhere they haA r e laid him." (John xx. 2.) 

9. As the other women Avere hastening to the city to tell the dis- 
ciples, " Jesus met them, saying, All hail ! And they came and held 
him by the feet, and worshipped him. Then said Jesus unto them, 
Be not afraid : go tell my brethren that they go into Galilee, and 
there shall they see me." (Matt, xxviii. 9, 10.) This Avas the first 
manifestation of himself after he had risen. When they got to the 
city and told the disciples, their testimony was not believed. (Luke 
xxiv. 9, 10, 11.) 

10. In consequence of Mary Magdalene's report, Peter and John 
had in the mean time come to the sepulchre. John outran Peter 
and arrived first. He stooped doAvn, looked into the tomb, and saw 
the linen clothes lying, but did not go in. Peter Avent in first. En- 
couraged by this, John entered also, and saAV that Jesus's body had 
not been taken aAvay, but that he had risen from the dead. Then the 



apparently contradictory. 543 

disciples returned to the city without seeing any angel. (John xx. 3 
— 10.) Luke mentions Peter only (xxiv. 12.). 

11. Mary Magdalene returned to the sepulchre to mourn in soli- 
tude over the removal of the body. As she stood without the door of 
the tomb weeping, she stooped and looked into it. There she saw 
two angels sitting in white, who addressed her. (John xx. 13.) On 
turning round she saw Jesus standing, but did not know him. She 
mistook him for the gardener. But when the Saviour addressed her 
by name in his well known voice, she recognised her Lord, and fell at 
his feet. This was the second appearance of Jesus after his resur- 
rection. (John xx. 11 — 17.) 

12. She goes to tell the disciples that she had seen the Lord, 
and that he had spoken these things to her (John xx. 18.), but they 
did not believe (Mark xvi. 10, 11.). 

13. While the other women (excluding Mary Magdalene) were 
hastening to the disciples with the joyful news of their Lord's resur- 
rection, the soldiers had come to the city and told the chief priests 
all that had happened. The elders assembled accordingly, and after 
mutual consultation gave a large bribe to the soldiers that they might 
circulate a false report. (Matt, xxviii. 11 — 15.) 

14. The joint reports of all the women delivered to the disciples 
are stated together by Luke xxiv. 10., though they were not properly 
simultaneous, or to the same persons. Mary Magdalene went to 
Peter and John ; the other women to the rest of the disciples. 

15. It is probable that the first man to whom our Saviour ap- 
peared was Peter. (1 Cor. xv. 5.; Luke xxiv. 34.) 

16. He appeared next to two of the disciples as they were jour- 
neying to the village of Emmaus. (Luke xxiv. 13 — 27. ; Mark xvi. 
12, 13.) 

We shall now very briefly direct attention to the greatest difficul- 
ties in these vax-ious accounts. Most of them have been noticed 
already in passing. 

(a.) The locality of the angel mentioned by Matthew, and his 
speaking to the women there, appears to us irreconcilable with the 
accounts of the same angel, or of the two angels mentioned by Mark 
and Luke respectively. Probably if we knew all the circumstances, 
they woidd be found in harmony. As Mark's account agrees with 
Luke's except in the number of angels specified, a circumstance of 
no importance, we are compelled to believe that the angel he speaks 
of was identical with one of Luke's. The difficulty is increased by 
identifying the angel of Matthew and Mark. No help is furnished 
by assuming that rd<j)os and jjlvthjlsiov differ, and are carefully distin- 
guished by some of the Evangelists ; for a comparison of places 
shows that they are employed synonymously. Robinson attempts to 
harmonise Matthew s account of the angel with that of Mark and Luke 
by calling attention to the circumstance, that though Matthew does 
not speak, of the women as entering the tomb, yet in verse 8. he de- 
scribes them as coming out of it ; " so that of course his account too 
implies that the interview took place within the tomb, as narrated by 
Mark and Luke." This inference is erroneous because it contra- 



544 Biblical Interpretation. 

diets what the angel says to the women in the fifth and sixth verses. 
He invites them into the sepulchre that they might see the place 
where the Lord lay. Doubtless the women entered the sepulchre ; 
but it is a mere arbitrary assumption to conclude from that fact that 
the conversation with the a,, el took place there. The context im- 
plies that the conversation took pla^ before, or at least that he 
addressed them previously. 

(b.) The expression in Mark referring to the point of time when 
the women visited the sepulchre, viz. dvarslXavros rov rjXiov, appear 
to us at variance with the corresponding expressions of the other three 
Evangelists. The Greek phrase means nothing else than, when the 
sun had risen. Robinson, however, undertakes to harmonise the 
phrase with the rest by assuming that Mark employed it in a broader 
and less definite sense not inconsistent with Xlav irpwt preceding. 
" As the sun is the source of light and clay, and his earliest rays pro- 
duce the contrast between night and dawn, so the term sunrising 
might easily come in popular usage, by a metonymy of cause for 
effect, to be put for all that earlier interval, Avhen his rays still 
struggling with darkness do yet usher in the day." 1 We are then 
referred to popular usage in the Old Testament, exhibited in Judg. 
ix. 33. ; Psal. civ. 22. ; Sept. 2 Kings iii. 22. ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 4., where 
the aorist of the verb dvaTsXXco is employed in the same manner. 
But all this appears to us aside from the real points. It may be that 
popular usage was vague, indefinite, inexact, without Mark's adopt- 
ing it. Indeed an accurate writer would refrain from it where it 
was of that nature. Besides, the passages are not " entirely parallel," 
as Robinson says. roTrpoot afxa t& dvarsZXai tov rfXiov is not equi- 
valent to dvarsiXavTos tov rjXiov. The latter marks a point of time 
after the former. The passage in the 104th Psalm, dvsrstXsv 6 rjXios, 
is still less analogous. The popular usage of the Hebrews conjured 
up to support the accuracy of Mark in this place is a mere phantom. 
Still less can we assent to Greswell's explanation that Xlav irpcot may 
be understood of the time when the women first set out ; and dvarsl- 
Xavros rov rjXiov of the time when they arrived at the sepulchre, 
between which there might be an hour's interval. The words appear 
to be clearly against this interpretation, for Xlav it pout, no less than 
dvarslXavros rov rjXiov, belong to spyovrai sirl to fivr/fisiov, i. e. 
they arrive at the tomb very early in the morning, when the sun had 
risen. 2 As far as we are able to see, dvarsiXavros rov r/Xlov does not 
agree well with Xlav irpwt just before, and disagrees with the other 
Evangelists, especially John. De Wette furnishes an explanation of 
the clause which is very probable. If it be rejected, we profess our- 
selves unable to reconcile Mark with the others in this point. 

(c.) Another difficulty lies in the vrpwrov of Mark xvi. 9., which 
implies that the appearance of Christ to Mary Magdalene was the 
first of all. We know, however, from the other Evangelists that he 
had appeared to the other women previously. Robinson solves the 
difficulty by taking irpcorov relatively not absolutely. Mark narrates 

1 Notes to Harmony, p. 230. 2 Dissertations, &c. vol. iii. p. 283. 



Passages apparently contradictory. 54.5 

three, and only three, appearances of our Lord ; of these three, that 
to Mary Magdalene takes place first, nrpwrov, and that to the assem- 
bled disciples the same evening occurs last, varspov, v. 14. This is 
very ingenious. Whether it be natural is another point. It is more 
likely that the writer meant to say, th , the appearance in question 
was the first of all. And i -.;"• Gresweli understands it, though we 
cannot believe that it was really the first. But the expression occurs 
in the first verse of the appendix to Mark's Gospel ; and therefore 
we need not hesitate to admit a mistake, if necessity demands. 

(d.) Another difficulty in the narratives is in Mark xvi. 1., com- 
pared with Luke xxiii. 56. The latter verse states that the women 
returned from the sepulchre to the city to prepare spices and oint- 
ments, which they did before the sabbath came, and rested on that 
day according to the commandment. But Mark's language implies 
that the women bought the spices after the sabbath was past, Btaysvo- 
fxivov rov aafifidrov. 

Various expedients have been resorted to for the purpose of re- 
moving this contradiction. 

Gresweli thinks that there were two parties of women, of which 
hypothesis he makes considerable use in harmonising the Gospel 
accounts. According to him the party of Johanna is referred to by 
Luke. They prepared their spices before the sabbath. On the other 
hand, the party of Salome, which included Mary Magdalene, and Mary 
the mother of James and Joses, is referred to by Mark. They did not 
get theirs ready till after the sabbath. The evidence in favour of 
two distinct, independent parties of women appears to us insufficient 
to establish the fact. We believe that there was only one party, 
each Evangelist mentioning more or fewer women on different oc- 
casions, according to the evangelical tradition he followed. Thus 
John mentions Mary Magdalene only, because she was the principal 
person. 

Others translate yp/opaaav in Mark xvi. 1. had bovght, in the plu- 
perfect. This is adopted in the English version. Beza and many 
after him so render the verb. But the rendering must be rejected. 
It is a mere subterfuge. 

Robinson supposes that Luke speaks of the spices by way of anti- 
cipation. This is, like the last hypothesis, a mere subterfuge. 

We profess our inability to remove the contradiction. 

In considering the various accounts given by the Evangelists of the 
resurrection, we are forcibly impressed with the idea that the writers 
followed various traditions of the circumstances connected with it, 
which differed somewhat from one another. The earlier form of the 
tradition, which was the simpler and more correct, afterwards assumed 
a complexion differing in unessential particulars. These different 
forms of the tradition were in some cases characteristic of certain 
districts and classes of persons. One may have been the Galilean, 
another the purely Jewish, another mixed. Of course this hypothesis 
applies more extensively than to the accounts of the resurrection ; 
while at the same time it may not apply to all parts of those accounts 
themselves. It can be traced most clearly in the narrations of the 

VOL. II. N N 



546 Biblical Interpretation. 

manifestations of the Saviour after he rose from the dead. It will 
be understood that it is inappropriate where the accounts in the 
Gospel proceeded from eye-witnesses, or were received by the writers 
immediately from eye-witnesses. And it is altogether inapplicable 
to such essential matters in the Gospel as contain religious doctrine 
— the revelation of moral and religious truth. 

Matt. xii. 40. "1 In the former place it is stated that Christ 

Mark viii. 31. &c. J should be three days and three nights in the 
heart of the earth ; whereas we know from the Gospels that he was 
in the grave an entire day, two nights, and two parts of a day. He 
was crucified on Friday about 9 o'clock, a.m., and rose at day-break 
on Sunday, so that the entire period did not amount to two days or 
48 hours. 

The Hebrews began their civil days in the evening. They ex- 
pressed them by evening and morning, because made up of those two 
parts. For this the Greeks used the compound term vvyQruispov, while 
the Hebrews were obliged to employ a circumlocution. Three civil 
days are meant in Matthew's Gospel, each beginning at 6 in the 
evening and terminating at 6 the next evening. In popular language 
fractions of days were counted as days themselves. This is shown 
by 1 Sam. xxx. 12, 13. ; Hosea vi. 2. Hence parts of the first and 
third days are counted as whole ones. Popular Jewish reckoning 
sanctions and confirms the language in Matt. xii. 40. But Mark's 
expression is different, and may appear more difficult of explanation, 
fMsra Tpsls rj/xspas, after three days. Here again three days do not 
require us to understand three entire ones. One might be a fraction. 
It was a common expression in the Hebrew language ; a thing hap- 
pened after a certain number of years, months, or days, although it 
was on the last year, month, or day. So in Deut. xiv. 28., where the 
LXX. have fjuzra rpta stjj, which really means in the third year (com- 
pare Deut. xxvi. 12.). Accordingly, the Jews requested Pilate to 
set a watch till the third dag, 'icos ttjs rpLTrjs rj/xspas (Matt, xxvii. 64.), 
though they informed him, as stated in the preceding verse, that 
Christ himself said he should rise again after three days, fisra. rpeis- 
rjjxspas. The Jews therefore understood the two phrases as equi- 
valent. 

Luke i. 33. 1 The kingdom of Christ consists of two branches or 
1 Cor. xv. 24. J departments, one of which has respect to his enemies 
— to all opposing powers, the other to his people. The passage in 
Luke refers to the latter ; that in Corinthians to the former. The 
word end, iskos, appears to allude to the kingdom which is delivered 
up, or its termination. The kingdom will have an end when he de- 
livers it up to the father. Or we may enlarge the idea contained in 
end, and include in it the completion of the eschatological transac- 
tions. The right reading is the present conjunctive irapahiZu), when 
he delivers up, the delivering of the kingdom taking place at the time 
mentioned. This view of the passage is agreeable to the context, 
which speaks of Christ's enemies. Opposing rule, authority, and 
power are said to be put down. Those who expound it of the 
mediatorial kingdom of Christ mistake the true aim of the Apostle. 



Passages apparently contradictory. 547 

It is probable that the mediatorial reign of the Saviour will never 
end. In different places, the phrase for ever is applied to Christ as 
king and priest; and it should not be restricted by the difficult 
passage under consideration. What is plain should not be expounded 
by the ambiguous, but the contrary. 

John v. 31. 1 In the former case, Christ was willing to concede 
„ viii. 14. J for the time that if he alone bore testimony to 
himself, the testimony would not be valid ; in the latter, he placed 
the thing on its own independent basis, affirming that though he did 
testify of himself he should be believed, because his case was not an 
ordinary one ; neither was he to be judged after the manner of a 
common man. He was intimately united with the Father in being 
and will. Being truth itself, the truth, his testimony needed no con- 
firmation. 

John v. 37, 38. "I In order to remove the apparent contradiction, 
Matt. iii. 16, 17. J Campbell gives a different translation of the 
former passage : " Nay, the Father who hath sent me hath himself 
attested me. Did ye never hear his voice or see his form ; or have 
ye forgotten his declaration that ye believe not him whom he hath 
commissioned?" An insuperable objection to this mode of translation 
is the change of subject which Campbell is compelled to assume. 
" Did ye never hear his voice" (the Father's) " or see his form " (the 
Holy Ghost's)? Both relate to the one person. Besides, the form 
of the sentence would have been different had the meaning been in- 
terrogative. Hence we must abide by the usual translation. When 
it is declared, " The Father himself hath borne witness of me," we 
believe that the Old Testament Scriptures are not excluded as to 
their substance, but that the internal icitness in the hearts of believers 
is chiefly intended. Indeed the two are intimately connected. Ap- 
prehension of the essence of the Old Testament accompanies the 
divine witness in believers to the truth of Messiah's dignity. The in- 
sensibility of the Jews to this divine testimony of the Father respect- 
ing his Son is then described in different ways, agreeably to the 
various methods by which men acquire knowledge. They neither 
heard his voice as did the prophets, nor saw his form as they did — 
both internal acts ; nor had they his word abiding in them, i. e. the 
truth dwelling in their hearts. Not having apprehended the direct 
testimony of the Father in any of these methods, they had not 
apprehended it at all. They had shown an insusceptibility of mind 
in relation to it. The voice at our Lord's baptism is not referred to 
in the word cficov?], as Liicke rightly observes. 

t u "•• or I -^ * s likely that Jesus bore his cross part of the 
i an. . I w -tin they got out of the city, and then Simon 
Matt. xxvn. 32. , J ., ,, J ,P . J ' 

-, r , ~, bore it the other part. 

Mark xv. 21. J l 

Acts i. 18. 1 Here some circumstance between the two occur- 

Matt. xxvii. 5. J rences related in Acts and Matthew respectively is 

wanting to complete the whole. Probably Judas hanged himself on 

the edge of a precipice near the valley of Hinnom; and the rope 

breaking by which he was suspended he fell to the ground and was 

NN 2 



548 Biblical Interpretation. 

clashed to pieces. The Apostle Matthew relates one part of the 
transaction and Luke another part, which is additional and supple- 
mentary. It is possible, however, that the accounts may have been 
derived from different traditions, as De Wette supposes. 

Acts ix. 7. 1 In the latter passage the verb ukovco, hear, means to 
„ xxii. 9. J understand. They understood not the voice of him 
that spake to me. See Hackett on ix. 7. 

Rom. ii. 14. 1 When the Gentiles who have not the written law do 
Ephes. ii. 3. j by natural impulse the things contained in that law, 
they become a law to themselves in consequence of the light within 
them. The apostle asserts the possibility of the Gentiles fulfilling 
the law ; but he does not say they ever actually do so. There is a 
restriction in his language, when they do, orav iroLcoauv. The phrase 
by nature, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, is quite in harmony with 
this. The natural bent of the mind in the mass of mankind is to 
evil. 

Rom. xiv. 5. \ This apparent contradiction has been already re- 
Gal, iv. 10, 11. J moved. See page 481. 

1 Cor. viii. 8 — 13. 1 In the former passage the apostle lays down 
1 Cor. x. 20, 21. J the principle that the participation of certain 
meats is in itself a matter of indifference. The enlightened Christian 
may or may not partake of meats according to his settled conviction 
of their nature. They are matters perfectly indifferent in themselves 
to him who takes a clear and conscientious view of them, eating 
or abstaining accordingly. But immediately after, the apostle pro- 
ceeds to show the inexpediency of advanced Christians acting ac- 
cording to their principles of individual liberty before weaker brethren. 
He warns them against the injurious use of a thing in itself in- 
different. The partaking of flesh which had been offered in sacrifice 
to heathen idols ceased to be a thing of indifference, if it proved a 
stumbling-block to weak consciences. Thus Christian liberty is 
limited by Christian love. In the latter passage, he points out a use 
of the freedom which the enlightened Christians in Corinth con- 
sciously enjoyed which was both dangerous to themselves and irre- 
concilable with communion with Christ. By joining in the heathen 
festivals and partaking of the offerings which had been dedicated to 
idols, they separated themselves from the spiritual fellowship of 
Christ. Thus the one passage contains the abstract principle ; the 
other a sinful application of it. In certain circumstances, the liberty 
claimed by the Christian becomes injurious, improper, unchristian. 
It is modified and controlled by the peculiar relations in which it is 
exercised. 

1 Cor. x. 33. 1 The circumstances under which the apostle wrote 
Gal. i. 10. J these words respectively, and the parties he had in 
view, explain and reconcile their meaning in each. case. In the 
former passage he expresses the great principle which pervaded his 
whole conduct, viz. that he endeavoured to conciliate and comply 
with the will of others as far as he could consistently with their true 
interests. He yielded to them as far as it tended to their profit, that 
they might be saved. In the latter passage, where he combats the 



Passages apparently contradictory. 549 

false teachers who maligned and opposed him, he denies that he 
pleased men or sought to ingratiate himself with them rather than 
God. He opposed the corrupt inclinations of men wherever truth 
required, preferring the approbation of God to human favour. There 
is both a sinful self-seeking conciliation of others' goodwill, and a 
pure unselfish striving to gain their affection for the purpose of doing 
them good. The latter the apostle had. The former he disowned 
as dishonouring to a servant of Christ and inconsistent with his pro- 
fession. 

1 Cor. xi. 5. 1 In the former passage the apostle simply refers for 
„ xiv. 34. J the sake of example to what was going on in the 
Corinthian church, reserving his condemnation of it to the proper 
place, which is at 1 Cor. xiv. 34. See JSTeander. 

Gal. vi. 2. T The word rendered burden in both places is not the 
„ vi. 5. J same. The ideas expressed by ra fidpri, burdens, and 
(poprlov, burden, are different. The first denotes the trials and 
afflictions which befal Christians, and of which their fellow-Christians 
should relieve them as far as they can. Believers should sympathise 
with and help their brethren to bear such burdens. The second de- 
notes individual responsibility under the moral government of God. 
Heb. xi. 33. "I The patriarchs under the Old Testament received 
„ xi. 39. J many promises, including their fulfilment. But it is 
stated in the latter place that they did not obtain the promise relating 
to the appearance of the Messiah, in their day. 

1 John i. 8. "J We have already explained these texts, and need not 
„ hi. 9. J therefore repeat what has been said. See page 478. 
Contradictions between the Old and Neio Testaments. — 
Gen. xii. 1. T The former passage refers to a divine call which 
Acts vii. 2. J Abraham received in Charran, after the death of 
his father Terah ; the latter to one previously received at Ur of the 
Chaldees. Accordingly the easiest solution is to suppose that he 
received two separate calls, the former of which is omitted in the 
Old Testament, but preserved in the New. It would appear that 
Stephen follows some traditional account respecting a divine intima- 
tion Abraham had in Ur of the Chaldees, for it is found in Philo. 
It is also implied in Gen. xv. 7., Nehem. ix. 7. Following this tradi- 
tion Stephen applies to the removal from Ur the words properly 
belonging to the call out of Charran. 

Others translate the verb ")BK*1 in Gen. xii. 1. as a pluperfect, the 
Lord had said, supposing that the call from Ur is there referred to, 
in which case the writer would go back to the point of time referred 
to in Gen. xi. 31. But the context shows that in the commencement 
of Gen. xii. Charran is the place referred to. 

Gen. xv. 13. 1 In Genesis, the time is stated loosely in round 
Gal. iii. 17. J numbers; but in the Epistle to the Galatians it 
is stated exactly. It is also given as 430 in Exod. xii. 40. 

Gen. xxii. 1. Tin the former passage it is affirmed that God tried 

James i. 13. j Abraham. He put his virtue and faith to the proof. 

In the latter passage tempt signifies to entice or draw into sin. God 

does the one, not the other. He proves his people by a discipline 

N N 3 



550 Biblical Interpretation. 

through which they are obliged to pass ; but he never draws the soul 
into a snare. The latter is man's own work. 

Gen. xlvi. 26, 27. \ Here the Old Testament has 70, while Stephen 
Acts vii. 14. J says 75. In like manner, not only here but 

also in Exod. i. 5., Deut. x. 22., 70 persons are specified. Fust 
there are 66, to which add Jacob, Joseph with his two sons, and we 
get 70. Josephus agrees with the Hebrew. But the LXX. have 
75 instead of 70, and Stephen follows the Greek. How the LXX. 
made out their number 75 is not certain. Hales thinks that the 
wives of Jacob's sons, viz. 9, being added to 66 make up the 75. 
Joseph's wife was already in Egypt. Judah's was dead, and so was 
Simeon's, as may be inferred from his youngest son Shaul by a 
" Canaanitess" (xlvi. 10.). Here the inference respecting Simeon's 
wife is uncertain. Wolfius and others subtract from the 66 + 12 
wives of Jacob's sons, Joseph, Joseph's wife, and Judah's wife who 
was dead. It is much more probable that to the number 66 the 
LXX. added 9 sons of Joseph, making thus 75 (see Gen. xlvi. 27.). 
We do not take the LXX. as saying in Gen. xlvi. 27. that 9 chil- 
dren and grandchildren were born to Joseph, but merely children. 
Alford is mistaken in charging the LXX. with reckoning among the 
sons of Joseph, Joseph himself and Jacob. Other modes of solution 
may be seen in Kuinoel and De Wette. 

Exod. xxx. 6. \ The opposition between these places is only ap- 
Heb. ix. 6, 7. J parent. The language of the first does not imply 
that the altar of incense was to be placed in the holy of holies. It 
was to be put " over against the vail that overhangs the ark of testi- 
mony," and specifically " over against the mercy-seat covering the 
law." This means that the altar was to be put opposite to or before 
the mercy-seat, but not on the same side of the vail. The Hebrew 
text should not be pronounced corrupt, with Kennicott. It needs no 
alteration to render the whole clear and consistent. 

Exod. xxiv. 10. ") The Apostle John speaks of Deity in the 
John i. 18. J abstract, or the Godhead; while in Exodus 

some manifestation of his person is referred to, — the Son who after- 
wards became flesh, as many think. 

Num. xxii. 5. \ Bosor in the New Testament is identical with 
2 Peter ii. 15. J Beor in the Old. The difference of orthography 
arises from the different pronunciation of the letter V in the word. We 
believe that the word son is rightly supplied in 2 Peter ii. 15. 

Numb. xxv. 9. 1 Philo and the Rabbins give the same number as 
1 Cor. x. 8. J the Hebrew, viz. 24,000, which must be regarded 
as correct. When Paul wrote 23,000 he made a trifling mistake of 
memory. Other modes of conciliation may be seen in Meyer. Of 
these Calvin's, which at first sight appears the most plausible, is in 
reality the most objectionable. Between 23,000 and 24,000 fell. The 
Old Testament writer gives the approximate round number above the 
specific one ; the New Testament writer, .the proximate round num- 
ber below it. This amounts to the assertion that neither is correct. 

A ts ' 'i 14 I "^ S nas J ust ^ een explained. 



apparently contradictory. 551 

Mark ii. 26. "I The fact related is said to have happened in 

1 Sam. xxi. 1. &c. J the high priesthood of Ahimelek in Samuel; 

but of Abiathar in Mark. Ahimelek was the father of Abiathar. 

The two names have been confounded by the Evangelist. 

Acts vii. 15, 16. 1 In the N. T. passage 

Gen. xxiii. 16, 17., 1. 13. ; Josh. xxiv. 32. J are various statements 

which clash with the Old Testament. 

1. That not only Jacob and Joseph, but the other sons of the 
former were buried in Palestine. 

2. That Jacob was buried in Sichem. 

3. That Abraham bought a field for a burying-place of the sons of 
Emmor. 

In regard to the first, it may be that all the patriarchs were 
buried in Palestine. The Bible says nothing of them in this respect ; 
so that though they died in Egypt, it is possible their bodies were 
taken to the land of promise. Stephen appears to follow a tradition 
to this effect. But probabilities are against its truth. 

2ndly. That Jacob was buried in Sichem is expressly against 
Gen. 1. 13., where it is said that he was buried in the cave of the 
field of Machpelah. 

3rdly. It was not Abraham that bought a field for a burying-place 
of the sons of Emmor, but Jacob, as we learn from Gen. xxxiii. 19. 
Abraham bought the cave of the field of Machpelah of Ephron the 
Hittite. 

Here we are compelled to admit that Stephen fell into two mis- 
takes. He was neither an apostle, nor inspired, nor infallible. 

Many methods of bringing these two statements into harmony 
with the Old Testament have been resorted to. The text too has 
been altered without sufficient authority. We are unable to perceive 
any solution which can make them agree with the accounts in the 
Old Testament. 

Acts xiii. 20. \ We have already referred to this discrepancy. 

1 Kings vi. 1. J Lachmann has the true reading in the former 
place, which runs thus : " And when he had destroyed seven nations 
in the land of Canaan, he divided their land to them by lots, about 
the space of four hundred and fifty years : and after this, gave them 
judges until Samuel the prophet." Here the discrepancy disappears. 

2. Tim. iii. 12. \ The difficulty supposed to lie in these texts has 

Prov. xvi. 7. J arisen from understanding them in a universal 
sense, as if all the godly were invariably persecuted, or their foes 
were always turned to become their friends. Neither statement 
should be urged. The former language was used in reference to the 
state of the early Christians surrounded by enemies, and generally 
persecuted as they then were. The latter is a general truth, to which 
there are many exceptions. 

Heb. ix. 4. "1 Some would refer hv § to o-k^vij, and not to ki$wtqv, 

1 Kings viii. 9. J the immediate antecedent. The meaning then is, 
in which tabernacle, not in which ark. This expedient is forced. 
The reasoning of the writer in the Epistle to the Hebrews is 



552 Biblical Interpretation. 

founded on the tabernacle — the original pattern, not on the temple 
ai'rangements as instituted by David and Solomon. In 1 Kings viii. 
the temple is spoken of; "whereas the New Testament author refers 
to the tabernacle. The pot of manna and Aaron's rod Avere ap- 
parently lost before the first temple was built. But they were in 
the tabernacle, as is proved by Exod. xvi. 32 — 34. ; Numb. xvii. 10. 
Yet it is stated there that they were before the ark, whereas the 
writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews affirms they were in it. How 
is this difference removed ? Not certainly in the way approved by 
Stuart, who explains the Hebrew phrase before the testimony itself, 
i. e. in the ark with the two tables of the law. It is most probable 
that the New Testament writer follows here a different tradition from 
that in the Old Testament, as Theophylact thought. 

Connected with this subject is the genealogy of Christ, as given 
by Matthew and Luke. There are some discrepancies between the 
two Evangelists themselves, as well as between several statements 
they make and the Old Testament. According to Matt. i. 17. there 
are three divisions of fourteen generations each. 

I. 1st Abraham^ 2nd Isaac, 3rd Jacob, 4th Judah, 5th Phares, 
6th Esrom, 7th Aram, 8th Aminadab, 9th Naasson, 10th Salmon, 
1.1th Boaz, 12th Obed, 13th Jesse, 14th David. 

II. 1st David, 2nd Solomon, 3rd Roboam, 4th Abia, 5th Asa, 6th 
Josaphat, 7th Joram, 8th Ozias, 9th Joatham, 10th Achaz, 11th 
Ezekias, 12th Manasses, 13th Anion, 14th Josias. 

III. 1st Jechonias, 2nd Salathiel, 3rd Zorobabel, 4th Abiud, 5th 
Eliakim, 6th Azor, 7th Sadoc, 8th Achim, 9th Eliud, 10th Eleazar, 
11th Matthan, 12th Jacob, 13th Joseph, 14th Jesus. 

Such appears to us the most probable method of arranging the 
three divisions. It is that adopted and justified by De Wette and 
Delitzsch. Others, as Meyer, begin the second fourteen with Solo- 
mon and end with Jechoniah, while they begin the third with Jecho- 
niah again. We believe, however, that the language of the apostle 
agrees best with the other. 

In the 8th verse, between Joram and Ozias, three kings are omit- 
ted, viz., Ahaziah, Joash, and Amaziah (2 Kings viii. 24., 1 Chron. 
iii. 11. ; 2 Chron. xxii. 1. 11., xxiv. 27.) Why they were left out we 
cannot discover. Was it on purpose, lest the numbers should exceed 
fourteen, as Jerome thought ? Or was it from the mere similarity of 
the names 'O^o^'as- and '0£i<zs, as Wetstein, Paulus, Fritzsche, Meyer, 
and De Wette conjecture ? One thing is certain, that such omissions 
were not unusual in the Hebrew genealogical registers, as may be 
seen from a comparison of 1 Chron. viii. 1. with Gen. xlvi. 21. 

In the 11th verse there is another omission. Between Josiah and 
Jechoniah, Jehoiakim is wanting. Hence several MSS. and versions 
insert words to this effect after begat : " Jehoiakim, and Jehoiakim be- 
gat." The two similar names Jechoniah or Jehoiachin and Jehoiakim 
being interchanged led to the omission of one. Here also Jechonias 
and his brethren are mentioned, whereas he had no brethren. It is 
true that in 2 Chron. xxxvi. 10. Zedekiah is called the brother of 
Jehoiachin, and in 1 Chron. iii. 16. his soji; but the loose expressions 



Passages apparently contradictory, 553 

there denote his uncle. Jehoiakim, on the other hand, had several 
brethren. Three are mentioned (1 Chron. iii. 15.). Thus the fact 
of brethren being mentioned along with Jechoniah shows that at one 
time Jehoiakim stood in the genealogy. 

In the 12th verse a name seems to be omitted between Salathiel 
and Zorobabel, viz. Pedaiah (1 Chron. iii. 18, 19.). This depends 
on those mentioned in 1 Chron. iii. 18. being the sons of Salathiel. 
Others, however, regard Pedaiah as the brother of Salathiel, in which 
case Zorobabel was the nephew of Salathiel. But in Ezra v. 2., 
Hag. i. 1. he is called his son. 

Whatever omissions or peculiarities now exist in the genealogical 
register, existed in the time of the apostle. He took it as it is from 
a current and recognised table. 

The genealogy in Luke is very different from Matthew's. It is in 
the inverse order. Beginning with Jesus, it goes up to Adam and 
God. It relates to Joseph, not however to him mainly, but to Mary 
whose husband he was. Joseph was the son of Heli by marriage, 
i. e., his son-in-law. Accordingly Luke's genealogical table is really 
a tracing of Mary's origin up to David. This is the reason why he 
gives one in addition to Matthew's. There could be no room for 
doubt or cavil respecting the descent of Christ from David, when a 
genealogy of him is given both on the side of his reputed father and 
real mother. 

The most perplexing point connected with this second genealogy 
is the identity or diversity of the Salathiel and Zorobabel, father 
and son, with the Salathiel and Zorobabel in Matthew's table. If 
they were identical, then the families of Solomon and Nathan co- 
alesced in Zorobabel, who is the same person in both Gospels ; the 
two lines afterwards separating till they again coalesced in the 
espousal of Mary to Joseph. Others, denying their identity, sup- 
pose that no coalition of the families took place before the mar- 
riage of Joseph and Mary. The most natural view is that they were 
identical. But we must refer to Barrett 1 , who endeavours to remove 
the difficulties attendant upon this view. 

In verse 36 Arphaxad is given as the son of Cainan, who was the 
son of Sala. But Sala was the son of Arphaxad, according to Gen. 
x. 24., xi. 12., 1 Chron. i. 24. The name Caman was taken by the 
genealogist from the LXX., who for some unknown reason inserted 
it in the Old Testament text. The Hebrew deserves the jDreference. 

Of the genealogy in Luke we must affirm the same as we did of 
that in Matthew, viz., that it was derived as it is from public and 
recognised registers. 

Contradictions between Scripture and the testimony of heathen 
authors. 

Luke ii. 1, 2, 3. 

At the birth of Jesus, Q. Sentius Saturninus was president of 
Syria (Tertull. adv. Marc. iv. 19.), or at least Quintilius Varus who 
succeeded him. When Yams was recalled, he was followed by 

1 Evangelium secundum Matthasum ex Codice rescripto in Bibliotheca Collegii SS. 
Tiinitatis juxta Dublin. Prolegomena. 



554 Biblical Interpretation. 

Quirinus about a.d. 7 or 8. Our Saviour must therefore have been 
ten or eleven years of age when Quirinus became proconsul of Syria. 
This officer was sent to confiscate the property of Archelaus, to take 
the census of the country, and collect a tax. Josephus tells us that 
he took a census in Judea (Antiqq. xviii. 1, 1.), which is referred to 
in Acts v. 37., and called amoypafyr), the word here used. Thus 
Luke is supposed to have made the mistake of antedating Quirinus's 
presidency about ten years. 

On this discrepancy we observe : — 

1. That the Greek text must remain as it is. Even Lachmann's 
emendation must be rejected as not sufficiently supported. He ex- 
punges the article before airoypa^rj on the authority of B.D. 

2. Those who conjecture that the second verse is a marginal gloss 
or interpolation are not to be attended to. So Beza in his first three 
editions, Venema, Pfaff, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Valckenaer. 

3. It is incorrect to render the verb airoypa^iaOai, to be enrolled or 
registered, as distinct from a proper census but preparatory or with a 
view to it. In the second verse the noun arroypa<pri denotes a proper 
census ; and therefore the verb should be correlative in sense. Hence 
Hales's translation must be rejected, which is, " Augustus Cassar 
issued a decree that all the land should be enrolled [preparatory to a 
census, assessment, or taxing]. (The taxing itself was first made 
while Cyrenius was president of Syria.)" Here avrrj is made the 
feminine of avros, self. This is substantially the view taken by 
Paulus, Gersdorf, Gloeckler, Krabbe, Mack, Ebrard, Lange, Hof- 
mann. It is most improbable, however, that a census once begun 
should be deferred for years. Besides, as Meyer remarks, avrij rj 
airoypacpr] should thus be accompanied by a particle, perhaps fjbkv, and 
then the third verse should not commence with ical, but with some- 
thing like ofMcos 8s. 

4. The phrase iraaav rrjv olKovfxivrjv, all the land, should not be 
restricted to Palestine, as Flacius, Paulus, Hug, Hales, &c. interpret 
it. It never has that meaning. It means the Roman Empire, in the 
present connection. 

5. Lardner, followed by Paley and others, proposes the solution 
that tjjs/xovsvovtos is taken proleptically , who was aftemvards governor 
of Syria and best known among the Jews by that title, which, belong- 
ing to him at the time of writing the account, was naturally subjoined 
to his name, though acquired after the transaction which the account 
describes. In this case the original would have been tov rjys/xovsv- 
ovtos or tov ryys[jb6'vo<}, as in Matt. i. 6. compared with Mark ii. 26. 

6. Many take irpia-rt), the superlative, as the comparative, i.e., before 
Cyrenius was governor of Syria. So Herwart, Bynasus, Marck, E. 
Schmid, Clericus, Keuchen, Perizonius, Ussher, Petavius, Heumann, 
Storr, Siiskincl, Tholuck, Huschke, Wieseler. But the parallels ad- 
duced in favour of this construction are not appropriate. They are 
not parallels. Hence the construction must be abandoned as harsh 
and unsupported. 

7. The natural and obvious sense is, this took place as the first 
census ichile Cyrenius teas governor of Syria. The language presup- 



Passages apparently contradictory. 555 

poses that a second one was known to Luke's readers, and therefore 
the Evangelist notices the present as the first under Quirinus. 

We take rjysfiovsvovTos in a wider sense than that of president or 
governor, viz. extraordinary commissioner or procurator. In this 
capacity Quirinus made the first census here spoken of. He stood 
high in the emperor's favour at this time, and was charged by him 
with extraordinary commissions, as we infer from Tacitus. Josephus 
says of him, when he entered upon the presidency of Syria and began 
the second census, that he had already filled many other offices. The 
case, too, of Germanicus, who made a census in Gaul, may be ap- 
pealed to as analogous. It is true that history makes no mention of 
this census or of Quirinus having conducted it in Syria before he be- 
came proconsul. But the mere silence of history argues nothing 
against the statement of Luke. As a credible historian, he asserts 
what we are bound to believe, unless something can be produced to 
the contrary. Here there is the mere silence of history against him, 
which is nothing. The verb rjyefiovsvoo will readily bear this wide 
sense, as may be inferred from Josephus's application of it. The 
present solution is adopted by Beza, Casaubon, Jos. Scaliger, Gro- 
tius, Magnani, Wernsdorf, Deyling, Nahmmacher, Birch, Sancle- 
mente, Ideler, Miinter, Volborth, Hug, and others. The objection 
of Meyer that in such a case f«y£{iovsvovTos would stand alone, with- 
out 1<vpias, is of little force. 

On the whole, we see no reason here for assuming a mistake or 
parachronism with Meyer, De Wette, Winer, Amnion, Thiess, 
Strauss, Weisse. 

Matt. xiv. 3., Mark vi. 17., Luke iii. 19. These passages are said 
to contradict profane history, in which the brother of Herod the 
tetrarch is uniformly styled Herod, not Philip. The name in Luke 
iii. 19. is spurious. But in the other two Gospels it is not so. Jose- 
phus uniformly calls him Herod, saying that he was a son of Herod 
the Great by Mariamne, daughter of a high priest. The name need 
not create the least difficulty. It was Herod Philip in full, the 
former being the family name, the latter his own personal name. 

Acts v. 36. 

Josephus mentions an insurrectionist of this name who appeared 
in the time of Claudius. That was about ten years after Gamaliel's 
advice was given. It is therefore most probable that Gamaliel 
alludes to another person of the same name. Josephus mentions 
three insurrectionary chiefs by name. Others he passes over. The 
one here he may have omitted. The name was not uncommon, and 
it is not surprising that one Theudas, an insurgent, should have 
appeared in the time of Augustus, and another Theudas in the reign 
of Claudius some fifty years after. According to the Jewish historian 
there were four men of the name of Simon within forty years, and 
three named Judas within ten years. See Hackett on the Acts. 
Sonntag endeavours to identify Theudas with one of Josephus's 
three insurgents, viz. Simon, a slave of Herod. 1 This is less probable. 

1 See Stadien und Kritiken for 1837, p. 622. et seqq., translated in the Bibliotheca 
Sacra for 1S48, p. 409. et seqq. 



556 Biblical Interpretation. 

A great deal has been written against the truth and credibility of 
the narrative in Matt. ii. 16., because the Jewish historian has 
omitted to notice the massacre of the infants at Bethlehem. Deistical 
authors have pronounced the evangelical narrative a fabrication ; 
and others, as Strauss, Meyer, and Amnion, assign to it a mythical 
character, along with the visit of the Magi. It appears to us how- 
ever most unreasonable to conclude from the mere silence of the 
Jewish historian that the event related in Matthew is either in- 
credible or improbable. We cannot see any necessity for his relating 
it on account of its singular character. It is consistent with the 
wantonly cruel disposition and temper of Herod. Surely among the 
many cruelties of that monarch the massacre of a few children might 
easily be omitted. When Meyer argues that the measure was both 
unnecessary and very unwise, he loses sight of the many sanguinary 
acts clone by Herod, who often proceeded to perpetrate the most 
wanton barbarities on mere unfounded suspicion, — things unneces- 
sary and imprudent, — especially towards the close of his life. 1 Besides, 
we cannot allow that Macrobius's account decides nothing, as being 
derived from the Christian tradition. It is this : " When Augustus 
had heard that among the male infants about two years old whom 
Herocl, king of the Jews, had ordered to be put to death in Syria, 
there was a son of his own, he said, It is better to be Herod's hog 
than his son." 2 

In a village like Bethlehem, the number of infants under two 
years of age could not have been great. Probably there were not 
more than twenty in it and its vicinity that lost their lives on the 
occasion. 

It is impossible to find any plausible reason for Josephus's silence 
respecting the massacre. Was it wilful or interested ? We cannot 
think so. The thing probably appeared too trifling to be mentioned, 
especially as it related to the birth of Christ. 



CHAP. XV. 

ON THE INFERENTIAL READING OF SCRIPTURE. 

When the sense of Scripture has been rightly apprehended, and all 
the truths designed to be expressed have been fully examined, the 
text may be applied to various purposes by making it a source of 
inferences. Conclusions may be derived from the written words by 
legitimate consequence, which are either theoretical and remotely 
practical, or immediately practical. 

The custom of deducing corollaries or conclusions from the lan- 
guage of the Bible is proper and safe. All practise it more or less. 
They must do so if they would understand the doctrines and duties 
contained in it in all their fulness. As long as the Scriptures address 

1 Seo Winer's Rcalvvorterbuclv vol. i. p. 4S3. note 2. 2 Saturnalia, lib. ii. cap. 4. 



Inferential reading of Scripture. 557 

the reason of men, they must be subjected to the inferences which 
that reason is ever making. The judgment is ever forming con- 
clusions ; and, when exercised on the language of divine revelation, 
it cannot divest itself of its wonted attributes. Hence the most in- 
telligent interpreters deduce conclusions from the divine teachings. 
If any warrant were required for this deduction of inferences, we 
might appeal to the authority of Christ himself,, who, in reasoning 
with the Jews, his persevering opponents, used it against them most 
effectually. The apostles also employed it, especially Paul, who 
was most addicted to argumentation and possessed most logical ability. 
The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews indulges in it. Indeed 
the great body of his Epistle or dissertation consists of it. 

At the foundation of this inferential reading lies the analogy of 
sacred things. There is a consistency in them which binds them 
together. One is linked with another, and helps to its perception. 
There is a mutual dependence of one on another. 1 Hence he who has 
a general acquaintance with the teachings of the Bible in their 
proper relations will be prepared for undertaking this kind of read- 
ing. He must know the general tenor of Scripture — what it teaches 
of God and man. The larger and more accurate is his knowledge of 
the essential doctrines of the Bible, the more competent will he be 
to prosecute this reading in a consistent and profitable manner. 
Having tasted the good word of God, and perceived somewhat of its 
far-reaching meaning, he will the more readily be in a condition to 
see the inexhaustible fulness of the sacred text. Besides, a sober 
judgment is necessary ; for the judgment has more to do with this 
kind of reading than any other faculty. The mind which is exercised 
in reasoning is best fitted to conduct inferential reading successfully. 
A feeble and uncultivated one must fail in the process. Vigour, 
freedom, and independence, should characterise the understanding 
of him who draws inferences from the text of Scripture wisely and 
well. 

The sources whence inferences are drawn are divided by Rambach, 
and after him by Francke, into two classes, viz. internal and ex- 
ternal. The former are inherent in the text itself; the latter are 
derived from a comparison of the text with other parts of Scripture. 
It is unnecessary to adopt any other method than that followed in 
the rules of interpretation. Inferences are deduced from the text in 
the same way and order as the exposition of the text itself is con- 
ducted. Expository and inferential reading employ the same instru- 
ments in the same method; the one process, however, following the 
other. 

Inferences are deduced, 

1. From the words of Scripture. Thus, in Ephes. i. 22, 23. the 
church is " Christ's body." He is its head ; he rules over it ; it is 
inseparably connected with him; it is sustained by his life; it is 
cared for and guarded by him ; it cannot die while he lives ; it will 
be in union with him for ever. Ephes. vi. 11. : " Put on the whole 

1 See Francke's Manuduetio ad Leetionem Sacr. Script., translated by Jaques, p. 100. 



558 Biblical Interpretation. 

armour of God." The Christian has enemies ; he needs a defence 
against them ; that defence is supplied by God ; he must avail him- 
self of it; he must use it altogether, for it completely protects the 
whole man. 

2. From words in their immediate connection or context. Thus, 
from Rom. xiv. 17., " The kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, 
and joy in the Holy Ghost," the following conclusions may be drawn. 
True peace of conscience is only in connection with implanted righte- 
ousness or holiness; genuine joy is the result of righteousness and 
peace ; the author of this joy is the Holy Spirit, and therefore it is 
not mere carnal joy or delight ; where righteousness does not bring 
with it peace and joy, it is not the holiness that comes from God and 
looks to him ; God has erected his throne of gracious rule only in 
that heart where righteousness, peace, and joy exist. 

Heb. xiii. 7. : " Whose faith follow, considering the end of their 
conversation." Spiritual rulers and teachers should show fidelity 
and steadfastness in their work ; they should be imitated by all who 
receive instruction and benefit from them ; their followers should 
derive courage and comfort from the death they died ; the death of 
eminent Christians who have been faithful presents a strong evidence 
in favour of that which they believed and taught. 

3. Inferences may be drawn from words in their connection with 
a wider context. By enlarging the range of the context, we enlarge 
the field and fertility of words in this aspect of them. 

Titus iii. 8. : " This is a faithful saying, and these things I will 
that thou affirm constantly, that they which have believed in God 
might be careful to maintain good works." Continuance in good 
works demands care on the part of the Christian ; there are means 
by which anxiety and care to maintain them are kept in active exer- 
cise ; the inculcation of certain doctrines is among the chief means 
for attaining this end; these doctrines are the leading evangelical 
doctrines stated in the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th verses preceding ; there 
is therefore an inseparable connection between good works and the 
reception of certain truths respecting God, Christ, the Holy Ghost; 
teachers of the gospel should dwell upon the fundamental doctrine of 
grace for the purpose of producing good fruit in the lives of those 
who are instructed by them. 

4. Inferences may be drawn from the scope of a passage. Thus the 
scope of Mark iii.- 23 — 30. is to show the fearful nature of such blas- 
phemy as the scribes had just been guilty of. In ascribing the power 
by which Christ wrought his miracles to Satanic agency, they blas- 
phemed the Holy Ghost, by whom those miracles were really wrought, 
and committed an unpardonable sin. Hence we may infer, that blas- 
phemy against the Holy Ghost was a sin of speech — that it is peculiar 
to those who ascribe Christ's miracles to Satanic power — that none 
need fear of being guilty of it now — that the leading Jews of that 
day were awfully hardened and infatuated against the Messiah — 
that his miracles and mighty works should be reverently spoken of — 
that the explanation of them by natural means approaches to the sin 
of the scribes — that it is highly dangerous to tarnish or lower the 



Inferential reading of Scripture. 559 

holy disposition which actuated the Saviour and the heavenly nature 
which dwelt in him. 

2 Tim. i. 8. : "Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony 
of our Lord nor of me his prisoner; but be thou partaker of the 
afflictions of the Gospel." One inference which has been deduced by 
Francke from this passage is, He who preaches the gospel without 
afflictions, is far removed from the example of the apostle. 1 But this 
does not agree with the scope of the entire passage, and is too general. 
WTxen afflictions come he who is not ready to endure them is far 
removed from the apostle's example ; but afflictions may not always 
come to hinder him who preaches the gospel. The times in which 
the apostle lived were different from ours. 

5. Inferences may be deduced from the general scope of an entire 
book or epistle. For instance, let the following words be com- 
pared with the general scope of the epistle in which they occur 
(1 John v. 18, 19.), — "We know that whosoever is born of God 
sinneth not ; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and 
that wicked one toucheth him not. And we know that we are of 
God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness," — and various in- 
ferences will flow from the collation. The general scope of the 
Epistle is to help forward the heathen Christians whom the writer 
had already instructed, to greater steadfastness and completeness in 
their profession, especially as they were threatened by dangers 
arising from erroneous views of Christ's person. Agreeably to this 
general object the apostle writes as in the verses quoted, whence we 
may infer that there is a marked separation between the church and 
the world; that sin cannot appear often in the former; that sin 
reigns in the latter ; that contact with the world is inconsistent with 
communion in the church; and therefore that he who would be 
perfect must be wholly separate from a sinful world. 

6. Inferences may be drawn from parallel passages. 

2 Tim. i. 8. : "Be not thou ashamed of the testimony of our Lord." 
Parallel to this is, " I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is 
the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth,'' (Rom. i. 
16.); and, "Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed" 
(Rom. i. 11., quoted from Isa. xxviii. 16., xlix. 23.). Hence we may 
derive the following corollaries. A true teacher of the gospel re- 
quires from others what he knows in experience not to be impossible. 
He who inculcates self-denial and endurance of affliction should 
manifest them by example before he enjoins them by precept. 

Let us take the passage selected by Francke, and consider it in- 
ferentially according to these various methods. 

" Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor 
of me his prisoner ; but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the 
gospel." (2 Tim. i. 8.) 

From the words themselves we deduce, 

" Be not thou ashamed." Boldness is required in our testimony 
to Christ. When one becomes ashamed of the testimony of Christ he 
is in the way of apostatising. 

1 See Manuductio, &c, translated by Jaques, p. 104. 



560 Biblical Interpretation. 

" The testimony." Courage in confession is increased by the con- 
sideration that we are ivitnesses. 

" Of our Lord." He who is ashamed of the gospel is ashamed of 
the Lord himself. 

" Prisoner." It is not Christian prudence, but the very opposite, 
to show favour to Christians when they enjoy outward prosperity, 
and to be ashamed of them in times of persecution. 

" His." A Christian in bonds is not the servant of man but of 
Christ. 

" Be thou partaker of the afflictions." Fellowship in afflictions is 
consolatory. Should he who preaches the gospel meet with afflictions 
in the providence of God and shrink from them, he is far removed 
from the example of the Apostle Paul. 

From the words in their connection or context we deduce, — 

Before we animate a combatant to be strong in the holy war we 
should furnish him with arms. Unless the Spirit of God be in the 
heart, we vainly attempt to animate by words. A fearful heart is 
not capable of the testimony of Christ, nor of enduring afflictions for 
the promotion of divine truth. 

These inferences result merely from collation with the verse im- 
mediately preceding. Others flow from collation with the succeeding 
verse. From the words in a wider connection we deduce, — 

The gift which a minister of Christ may have received from God 
is to be stirred up, in order that he may not only teach but also 
suffer, if needful. He who permits the laying on of the hands of the 
presbytery ought to suffer, if Providence so wills it, the laying on of 
the hands of the civil officer. These inferences are derived from a 
collation with the sixth verse. 

From collation with the tenth verse we may derive the following : 
Greater boldness in enduring pei'secutions should be evidenced under 
the New Testament dispensation, because Christ has really appeared, 
and so confirmed our faith in his obedience, sufferings, and resur- 
rection. 

From the passage taken in its relation to the special scope of the 
paragraph in which it stands we may deduce these inferences : — 

A minister can promise himself little or no assistance from a 
fellow-labourer who is not possessed of spiritual boldness ; since such 
an one will rather hinder than accelerate the progress of truth 
through fear of shame and imprisonment. It is of no small con- 
sequence that the testimony of God's servants be multiplied. They 
who are engaged in one common service may mutually stir each 
other up to seek their Lord's glory, which is to be promoted by unity 
of purpose and action. 

From the same passage in its relation to the general scope we may 
draw such inferences as these. Considering the person of Paul we 
deduce, — 

1. It is right for a minister to call fellow-labourers to his help, not 
only in times of prosperity but of adversity also. 

2. It is his duty, however, not to do this precipitately, but care- 
fully to prepare for the events which appear about to happen. 



Inferential reading of Scripture. 561 

3. It is his duty to fortify the mind of him whom he invites to his 
aid. 

4. Should he perceive any thing in the other, or in the circum- 
stances of the case, likely to deter him from furnishing the required 
assistance, he should seasonably remove all these hinderances. 

Considering the person of Timothy, the following are deducible. 

1. A minister should neither accelerate his departure from his 
own sphere of labour, nor defer going to another through fear of 
calamities. 

2. He should fortify his mind against such calamities, that he may 
be a workman that needeth not to be ashamed. 

3. The clanger of others ought not to intimidate him, but render 
him prudent, and even excite within him a like readiness to endure 
sufferings. 1 

A collation of the text may be instituted with the consideration of 
the circumstances who, xohere, when ? The latter however does not 
so much constitute a new source as present a more favourable oppor- 
tunity of drawing inferences from other sources. 

IVlw ? " And I will very gladly spend and be spent for you ; 
though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be loved." (2 Cor. 
xii. 15.) Considering that Paul the Apostle writes these words, we 
may infer that self-denying labours in the formation and building up 
of a Christian church may be requited with coldness and alienation 
of affection on the part of the members ; that the most disinterested 
and self-sacrificing teacher of the gospel may meet with discourage- 
ment and opposition ; that he who does most for the welfare and 
highest interests of a Christian people is not exempt from undeserved 
treatment ; and that ministers of the gospel should not be turned 
away from their duty towards those who prove ungrateful for their 
highest services. 

A false inference, arising in a great degree from neglect of the 
person speaking, is that deduced from the words of John the Baptist 
in Luke iii. 14., "And the soldiers likewise demanded of him, saying, 
And what shall we do ? And he said unto them, Do violence to no 
man, neither accuse any falsely ; and be content with your wages." 
John did not say to them, Cease to be soldiers ; therefore the military 
profession is legitimate under the Christian dispensation. This in- 
ference is unwarrantable, because the Baptist did not belong to the 
Christian dispensation. He stood between the Jewish and the 
Christian economies, but nearer the latter. 

Where ? i. e. the place where the words were uttered. " Not as I 
will but as thou wilt." (Matt. xxvi. 39.) He who made atonement 
for the sins of mankind voluntarily submitted to the will of the 
Father in a garden of unparalleled suffering; but man voluntarily 
opposed the will of the Father in a garden of pleasure. 

The time when things were done or words uttered. " Yet for 
love's sake I rather beseech thee, being such an one as Paul the 

1 See Francke's Guide to the reading and study of the Holy Scriptures, &c. by Jaques, 
p. 103. et seqq. 

VOL. II. O O 



562 Biblical Interpretation. 

aged, and now also a prisoner of Jesus Christ." (Philemon, 9.) When 
the apostle requested Philemon to receive back Onesimus his servant 
to his house and confidence, he was aged and a prisoner at Rome. 
He did not use his apostolical authority in the matter. He adduced 
other and tenderer motives. From this we may infer that the time 
and occasion should be urged on behalf of a reasonable and Christian 
request, in preference to an insisting on the strict letter of duty ; 
that such as are best entitled by age, knowledge, and opposition to 
urge the right as right, should adopt another course having less ap- 
pearance of strictness ; and that age should mellow the tone of Chris- 
tian teachers and rulers towards those they have to do with. 

The manner in which a thing is done. " And he was three days 
without sight," &c. Paul was brought to the knowledge of himself 
and his true state in relation to God during the three days and three 
nights. Hence it may be inferred that a conviction of spiritual 
blindness precedes spiritual enlightenment. 

In deducing inferences from the text of Scripture it will be useful 
to keep in mind the following cautions. 

1. They are more safely derived from the originals than from any 
version. Thus from Psal. lxxxiv. 6., which is rendered in the English 
version, " the rain also filleth the pools," it has been inferred, " if 
we be ready to receive the grace of God, that grace shall not be 
wanting to us, but shall be sufficient for us at all times ; " x a conclu- 
sion founded upon the ordinary sense that the pilgrims to Jerusalem 
dug little pits to receive and keep the rain water which was for their 
refreshment. The correct version however is, " the rain covers it 
(the valley of Baca) with blessings." This present life, which is 
a vale of sorrow, is converted into a fountain of delight, a valley 
covered with blessings, by the godly man whose strength is in God 
and whose prayers draw down every needful benefit, to cheer the 
aspect of the Christian way. From the true translation of the phrase 
in question we might draw this inference, that abundant blessings lie 
in the path of the righteous through this world amid all its sorrows 
and trials. God proportions the one to the other, so that there is 
a counterbalancing effect. 

From Gen. xx. 16. " Behold he is to thee a covering of the eyes," 
this inference has been deduced : " Yoke-fellows must be to each 
other for a covering of the eyes. The marriage covenant is a cove- 
nant with the eyes, like Job's (chap. xxxi. I.)." 2 This is founded 
on an incorrect sense of the original. The covering of the eyes is 
the propitiatory gift. 

Under this head some have brought Acts ii. 47. compared with 
Acts xiii. 48., whence an inference foreign to the intention of the 
sacred writer is said to be deduced by such as infer " that those 
whom God adds to the church shall necessarily and absolutely be 
eternally saved." It is certainly true that the proper translation of 
the former passage is, " the Lord added the saved to the church ; " 
language that expresses a fact not a purpose. But from the former 

1 Henry's Commentary. 2 Ibid. 



Inferential reading of Scripture. 563 

the latter may be properly inferred. What God does he purposes to 
do ; for he does nothing without purpose or counsel. Every thing 
he does is the expression of his unalterable will. But although 
we may properly and logically infer the purpose of saving those 
added to the church from the fact of their being added, yet it is 
an objectionable statement " that those whom God adds to the 
church shall necessarily and absolutely be eternally saved." Pro- 
pounded in this naked form, without its due limitations, the proposi- 
tion is scarcely scriptural. It cannot be legitimately inferred from 
the right translation of the passage. With regard to the second pas- 
sage, viz. Acts xiii. 48., the inference may be correctly drawn from 
it that such as believe are divinely appointed unto eternal life. Not 
however absolutely and unconditionally appointed ; nor do the words 
warrant the hypothesis of indefectibility from grace. All that they 
sanction is, that such as truly believe were appointed (from eternity) 
to eternal life. Those commentators who would alter the sense of 
reray/jLsvoi (appointed) into disposed or inclined, i. e. as many as were 
disposed for eternal life believed, are mistaken in their view. The 
original Greek will not bear it ; and therefore it cannot be consonant 
with the context and scope of the sacred historian, as has been argued. 
Hence all the learning of Hammond, Whitby, Wall, Wolfius, Wet- 
stein, Limborch, and even Doddridge, together with Humphry, 
quite recently *, is thrown away in defending the meaning fitly dis- 
posed, seriously concerned, qualified for, &c. &c. The Greek word 
signifies external disposal, such as the marshalling of troops ; but it 
is never applied to internal disposal or to the mind's inclination. The 
passage cited by Humphry from 2 Maccab. vi. 21. is against, not for 
his view when the adjoining words are taken along with Tsra^fxivoi, 
as they should be. He has mistaken the sense of the place he quotes. 
All the best critics, as Winer, Olshausen, Meyer, Usteri, De Wette, 
render appointed. 

Again, it is an obvious and axiomatic observation that inferences 
should be founded on the genuine sense, and not on any other, 
however ingenious, recondite, spiritual, or correct it may appear. 
Thus in Gen. iv. 23. " Hear my voice ; ye wives of Lamech, 
hearken unto my speech ; for I have slain a man to my wounding, 
and a young man to my hurt," &c. In the margin of the English 
Bible it is, " I woidd slay a man to my wounding," &c. Adopting 
this rendering as giving the true sense, some have drawn the in- 
ference, jealousy is the natural consequence of polygamy. As 
Lamech was the first polygamist, so it is thought that he here speaks 
in a threatening tone to Iris wives from the promptings of jealousy. 
But it is altogether wrong to translate " I would slay " &c, and 
Lamech does not threaten before his wives through feelings of jea- 
lousy. The inference therefore cannot be sustained. 

It has also been inferred in Genesis from vi. 3., " And the Lord 
said, My Spirit shall not always strive with man," that " those are 
ripening apace for ruin whom the Spirit of grace has left off striving 

1 Commentary on the book of the Acts of the Apostles. 
o o 2 



564 Biblical Interpretation. 

with." ' But this is based on an improper translation. The sense of 
the verb is not to strive. 

Matt. xiii. 44. : " The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure 
hid in a field." From this has been drawn the inference that " Jesus 
Christ is hid in gospel ordinances." 2 But the conclusion is founded on 
a mistaken apprehension of the meaning of treasure. 

2. Inferences should not be drawn which merely repeat the words 
of a text in phraseology nearly similar ; for these are not proper 
inferences, but rather repetitions of the Scripture language. An 
inference is implied in and deduced from the words of the Bible, 
instead of being the sense of the words themselves. It is a corollary 
from the true sense, not the sense itself. Thus Luke x. 42., " But 
one thing is needful : and Mary hath chosen that good part which 
shall not be taken away from her." 1. Religion is the one thing 
needful. 2. A part with Christ is a good part. 3. Every one should 
choose this good part. 4. Those who choose this good part shall have 
their choice commended. Here although the propositions stated 
partake a little of the nature of inferences, they are too commonplace 
and obvious. They lie too much on the surface, and are rather repe- 
titions of the words in the text. Again, we read in John's Gospel 
viii. 36., " If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free 
indeed." The Son gives freedom ; the freedom he bestows is a true 
freedom. 

There are many kinds of inferences according to the sources from 
which they are derived and the purposes they are meant to serve. 
Thus some are theoretical and doctrinal. Others again are practical. 
Some are profitable for doctrine, others for reproof, others for instruc- 
tion, others for comfort. They serve to confirm faith, to excite love, 
to nourish hope in the Christian. We have written this chapter, how- 
ever, chiefly with a view to practical inferences — those which a plain 
reader of the Bible may be supposed capable of drawing for his own 
edification. These are the safest and the most useful. As for doctrinal 
and theoretical inferences, they are precarious in their nature and 
accompanied with danger. In the history of the church, in synods 
and councils, their effects may be seen in part. The great liability of 
theologians to put their own inferences from the Scripture text into 
the place of unequivocal statements of that text, is sufficient to dis- 
suade the sober critic from indulging in them. Yet the creeds of 
Christendom are largely interspersed with such deductions. Having 
been drawn up in times of controversy, and indeed owing their 
birth to it, they breathe a polemic tone and tendency We deplore 
the manifestations of this theoretical deduction-system when applied, 
as it has been, to the nature and essence of the divine Being — to 
the distinctions in the Godhead and the expression of the divine 
attributes. In all cases it is desirable to have a clear perception of 
the right sense of a passage before one attempt to derive corollaries 
from it. If the passage relate to doctrine, let it be cautiously em- 
ployed as a source of inferences, should it be thought desirable to use 

1 See Henry's Commentary. * Ibid. 



Inferential reading of Scripture. 565 

it so at all. But (for the most part) we hold that the inferential 
reading of the Bible should be confined to the easier and more 
practical portions ; because its chief utility lies in instructing and 
comforting him who has already got a competent knowledge of the 
few leading points in Revelation which constitute its centre and 
essence. The inferental reading of the Bible is available for private 
instruction rather than for teaching others. It serves to strengthen 
devotion. It contributes to an intelligent piety. In these respects it 
should be conducted by oneself, and applied to self. It is safest when 
so employed. At the same time there is no objection to its use for 
others' edification, if it be wisely managed. Indeed all sermon-writers 
draw inferences from passages of the Bible for the instruction of those 
to whom they address themselves. And if their inferences be legiti- 
mate, the process is commendable. It is difficult, however, to deduce 
judicious, proper, and natural conclusions from the genuine sense of 
a passage. Men are so liable to put their own notions and prejudices 
into such inferences, that they do not always or often conduct the 
process -wisely. 

A few improper and illegitimate inferences from sermonising com- 
mentaries on the Bible may be given by way of conclusion. 

"Jesus when he w r as baptized went up straightway out of the water." 
(Matt. iii. 16.) He went down to have his head or face w T ashed, 
because he went up from the ivater (airo rod vSaros). So Matthew 
Henry asserts. 

" Then the Devil taketh him up into the holy city." (Matt. iv. 5.) 
The holy city is the place where he does with the greatest advantage 
and success tempt men to pride and presumption. We believe that 
this assertion of Henry's is contrary to fact. 

" Drink no longer water, but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake 
andthine often infirmities." (1 Tim. v. 23.) As Timothy could not 
continue to do the work at Ephesus which the apostle appointed 
him to if he followed his present mode of abstemiousness, it was 
necessary that he should receive direction from divine authority rela- 
tive to the preservation of his life. Such are the inferences of A. 
Clarke. But they are wholly unsupported and improbable. 

From John xx. 6., these inferences have been drawn. Peter's 
venturing into the sepulchre teaches, 1. that those who in good earnest 
seek after Christ must not frighten themselves with bugbears and 
foolish fancies. " There is a ghost in the grave." 2. That good 
Christians need not be afraid of the grave. 3. We must be willing 
to go through the grave to Christ. These three inferences, which 
are in Henry's commentary, have nothing to do with the words of the 
verse. They are not based on its genuine sense. They are not 
taught by it in any way. They are a kind of mystical parallels sug- 
gested by a quaint fancy. The verse simply shows that Peter acted 
with his usual boldness and promptness, having more courage than 
John. 



566 Biblical Interpretation. 



CHAP. XVI. 

ON THE PRACTICAL READING OF SCRIPTURE. 

A chapter on this subject scarcely belongs to a treatise on Her- 
meneutics. It does not admit of rules or precepts. Even hints 
will be less of utility here than elsewhere, because of the nature of 
the topic. The practical reading of the Bible must be known and 
learned by experience, in a more emphatic sense than any department 
of sacred interpretation. Its object is the application of Scripture 
to faith and practice. Some may think that it amounts to the same 
as inferential reading already treated of; but there is a perceptible 
difference. To deduce practical doctrines and inferences from the 
text, applying them in a historical way, is not properly practical 
reading, which is the application of divine truth to the heart. 

If moral qualifications be requisite for the right understanding of 
Scripture they are pre-eminently necessary for the profitable applica- 
tion of it. Sincerity and earnestness of soul are qualities indispen- 
sable for conducting it. And while Hermeneutics generally pre- 
suppose an acquaintance with the original languages of the Bible, 
practical reading does not. As Francke well remarks, it is of such a 
nature that it may be prosecuted by an illiterate person, for the appli- 
cation of Scripture which it enjoins is connected with salvation ; and 
therefore if it were not within the ability of the unlearned, it would 
be vain to allow them the reading of the Scriptures. 1 All things 
necessary to faith and practice may be acquired from versions. Our 
own English version may be generally relied on by the unlearned 
reader, who has no acquaintance with the Greek and Hebrew lan- 
guages. We can cordially concur in many of the testimonies borne 
to its excellence and fidelity by various scholars. But we do not 
concur in the statement that " of all modern versions it is upon 
the whole undoubtedly the most accurate and faithful : the trans- 
lators having seized the very spirit of the sacred writers, and having 
almost every where expressed their meaning with a pathos and 
energy that has never been rivalled by any subsequent versions either 
of the Old or the New Testament." To mention none other, De 
"Wette's German version of the Bible is incomparably superior. A 
better translation into English might and ought to be made at the 
present day ; for surely our acquaintance with the Bible and its 
languages far exceeds the knowledge of it which men had two 
hundred years ago. 

We agree with Francke in holding, that the simplest application 
of divine truth is the most profitable if it be made with sincerity of 
soul 2 ; and submit the following advice on the subject. 

1. He who reads the Scriptures with a view to their practical 
application should be animated and guided by pure motives. 
Without these it will be vain. He engages in a work of high and 
serious importance. He enters into close contact with solemn things. 

Guide to the reading of the Scriptures, &c. by Jaqucs, pp. 123, 124. J Ibid. 



Practical reading of Scripture. 567 

He desires to be spiritually improved in mind, heart, and temper — 
to be brought more fully into harmony with holiness and with God. 
Whatever sins lurk within him or dwell there, it is his conscientious 
endeavour to root out by means of the truth, Evil propensities are 
to be subdued by the quick and powerful word of God brought 
home to the sensibilities and intellect of the sincere student of 
Scripture. Pure motives are therefore the necessary means of ob- 
taining a right appreciation of the divine teaching in its enlightening 
efficacy. 

2. In the practical application of Scripture, we should commence 
with the easier books and passages, in which the understanding is not 
liable to be taxed with difficulties in the sense, nor to be agitated with 
doubts. When some proficiency has been made, recourse may be 
had to the abstruser portions of the Bible. 1 Here it is fortunate for 
the humble-minded, illiterate reader, that the easiest parts are at the 
same time the most useful. The plainest are the most profitable of 
all. To select suitable lessons from the one, is to secure the greatest 
advantage. After proceeding to the more difficult chapters or books, 
it will not be needful or desirable there to meddle with critical nice- 
ties, or such subtleties as lie in the connection of particles and 
words with one another. As soon as the region of metaphysics or 
philology is entered, devotion becomes cold and arid. Abstruse 
points, therefore, may be safely neglected, as not ministering to the 
progress of religion in the soul but rather impeding it. "We know 
of nothing more appropriate and edifying than the First Epistle of 
John and some parts of his Gospel. The first three Gospels also may 
be practically applied, towards the commencement of this kind of read- 
ing. Afterwards, the Pauline Epistles may be resorted to ; last of 
all the prophetic books, such as the Apocalypse. The latter indeed 
are too much neglected, though they may furnish the noblest lessons 
in a devotional view which can possibly be had from any part of the 
Bible. Doubtless they have ministered largely to the edification 
and comfort of many a saint, especially in seasons' of distress and 
persecution. 

3. Some parts of the Bible cannot be properly employed in this 
exercise, because the words of ungodly men are sometimes given, or 
the sentiments of well-meaning but mistaken persons. Sceptical 
objections are also found. All such are to be left out of the account. 
No practical application of them should be attempted. In connec- 
tion with this we should remember, that pious men did not always 
act and speak in conformity with the will of God. Moses did not 
bo ; neither did David. Hence there should be a discrimination in 
the case of persons, times, places. An intelligent piety will regard 
all the circumstances under which a thing was said or done. Some 
parts of the Bible are not the word of God, but the word of man. 
Such are portions of the book of Ecclesiastes. Such are parts of the 
discourses put into the mouth of Job's three friends, since God was 
afterwards displeased with them. These are but specimens. 

1 Guide to the reading of the Scriptures, &c. by Jaques, p. 128. 
00 4 



568 Biblical Interpretation. 

4. In applying the conduct of those mentioned in Scripture to our 
own edification, it should be observed, that we are bound in general 
to imitate the example of pious and holy men there described. Their 
actions and sayings we are required to make use of with a view to 
our good. Some precepts, however, given to them are now inappli- 
cable, as in those cases where all males are commanded to go up to 
Jerusalem three times a year to worship. And the conduct of good 
men must not be imitated in certain cases, viz., such as were extra- 
ordinary, peculiar to a dispensation or state of things, and sinful. 
Thus Elijah destroyed the prophets of Baal ; but we should not put 
to death or cause to be slain those who promote a false religion. The 
Israelites were utterly to destroy the Canaanites, but we should not 
exterminate classes of men or nations. Things extraordinary are no 
rule to us. In like manner actions exclusively belonging to a certain 
time cannot be patterns to believers now, such as the observance of 
love-feasts or the agapae of the early Christians. And every one 
will understand, that sinful actions, such as Ave observe in the lives of 
holy men described in the Bible, are to be carefully avoided instead 
of being imitated. Good men are to be followed only so far as they 
conformed to the moral law of God — that divine rule of conduct 
which can never change or cease to be obligatory. In every case 
where we feel that the sayings and doings of Scripture should not be 
adopted implicitly it will be necessary to consider the theory of 
duty. How can we in our circumstances act in accordance with the 
examples of Scripture, so that we shall best answer the ends intended 
to be served by the record of such examples? How would holy men 
have acted had they enjoyed our superior light and privileges ? In 
what way would their conduct or sayings have been modified had 
they been placed in our situation ? Our business is to make a com- 
parison between the circumstances of those who are set before us and 
our own. 1 

5. The failings and sins of good men as they are recorded in the 
Bible may teach us to watch against the like ourselves, to avoid the 
occasions which led to them, to repress the tendencies of our nature 
which are similar. We should look within and search whether the 
seeds of the very same do not lie in the bosom in a state in which 
they may be developed and actively appear as soon as circumstances 
are favourable. Above all, such faults should instruct us to Avork 
out our salvation with fear and trembling, looking for and relying on 
the divine aid at all times. If holy men fell into sin, we may equally 
or more readily fall into the same vices through the evil that lurks 
in our hearts, unless we be very careful and circumspect. And 
when we fall, let us employ the same means for penitence and reco- 
very as they did. Both in their fall and their restoration they may 
be very profitable to him who observes their conduct. 

6. In all practical application of Scripture we must look mainly to 
Christ, Avhose personal obedience and sufferings are to be appropriated 
by faith in the first instance ; and whose spirit, temper, and conduct 

1 See Iley's Lectures in Divinity, chap. xi. p. 52. et seqq. vol. i. of the third edition. 



Practical reading of Scripture. 569 

are next to be imitated in our lives. In him we have a perfect pat- 
tern. 1 In some things indeed, he cannot be imitated, because he 
was God as well as man. In others he should not, because he sus- 
tained as Mediator a peculiar relation to the Father and to mankind. 
But in the ordinary tenor of his life, he is undoubtedly set forth as 
a holy pattern, sinless and perfect, in whose steps the righteous 
should tread, and by whose mind they should be animated. The 
portrait of the Saviour in the Gospels is one which cannot be studied 
too well or copied too closely by the Christian. Likeness to Christ 
in spirit and conduct is what humanity is capable of — what it 
needs — what Christ suffered and died to effect. As far as holy 
men whom we read of in Scripture followed him, and no farther, 
should they be imitated. " Be ye followers of me," says the Apostle 
Paul, " even as I also am of Christ." (1 Cor. xi. 1.) 

7. The application of Scripture to ourselves should be close, 
searching, honest, impartial ; for without this we shall not employ 
the word of God in the way which is most profitable. We should 
consider first the anatomy and physiology of our minds, comparing 
them with the portion of Holy Scripture under review. Thus may we 
perceive the particular tendencies or faults belonging to us, which 
will lead to an examination into their causes. Then comes the pro- 
per remedy to be applied. The use of the divine word is multifarious. 
It will suit every habitude of mind. Commands and prohibitions, 
promises and threatenings, exhortations and precepts, warnings and 
cautions, examples and precedents, will all serve to the furtherance 
of the great end which God had in view in giving them, viz., the 
destruction of sin, and the building up of the divine image in man. 

8. We should not apply all tilings at once, but successively, lest 
the mind be overwhelmed with the copiousness of matter. The 
obviousness of this remark will strike every reader. 2 

9. The commencement of practical application may be instituted 
with most ease by including a text and its component words in short 
prayers or ejaculations, after its sense has been rightly ascertained. 
This method, says Francke, may appear simple and puerile ; but 
many have approved its excellency by experience, and learned its 
value by the rich fruits it has produced. 3 

10. The continuation of practical application should occupy the 
whole of our lives. It is aided by our own diligence, and especially 
by divine grace, which is given in larger measures to those who re- 
ceive the seed of the word into good ground. This divine grace is 
procured by prayer. It is both the answer to and the soul of that 
holy exercise. 

To those who are intent on the application of the Scriptures we 
cannot too emphatically recommend attention to the state of their 
hearts in the light of that holy truth which God has revealed for the 
salvation of the world. The letter of Scripture killeth, but the spirit 
maketh alive. The grace of God will enable them to seize upon the 
spirit, and bring it home to their bosoms with a power which shall 

1 See Francke's Guide, &c. pp. 126, 127. 2 Ibid. p. 128. 3 Ibid. pp. 124, 125. 



570 



Biblical Interpretation. 



lift them above the external excellences that delight men of culti- 
vated taste, and will place them in the midst of those spiritualities 
which the spiritual alone can perceive and enjoy. Prayer, medita- 
tion, a pure heart, an upright intention, will conduct the reader of 
the Bible to a practical acquaintance with its sanctifying truth, which 
cannot be attained by the mere scholar ; helping him to make it in his 
own case all that it should be to the soul and conduct — a stimulus 
and a stay alike — a convincing and elevating element leading him 
onward to perfect holiness. 



A BRIEF INTRODUCTION 



THE OLD TESTAMENT AND APOCRYPHA. 



A BRIEF INTRODUCTION 



THE OLD TESTAMENT AND APOCRYPHA. 



CHAPTER I. 

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE PENTATEUCH. 

The Pentateuch, by which title the five books of Moses are collec- 
tively designated, is a word of Greek origin, 77 irtvTcursvyos viz. 
/3lj3\o$, the five-volumed or five-fold book ; among the Latins Penta- 
teuchus, i.e. liber. By the Jews it is usually called rnin, torah, the 
lata, or !"i£>D rnin, the law of Moses. Among the Rabbins it is styled 
rninn ^pin n^pq, i.e. the five-fifths of the law. It is fitly designated 
the laiv, because it contains the ordinances given by God to the 
Israelites. In the Hebrew MSS. the Pentateuch forms one roll or 
volume, divided merely into larger and smaller sections, or parshioth 
and sedarim. At what time the five-fold division took place, it is 
difficult to discover. Bertholdt l and Keil 2 think that it is original; 
while Michaelis 3 regards it as older than the LXX. But it is most 
probable that it proceeded from the Greek translators, as Leusden 4 , 
Havernick 5 , and Von Lengerke 6 suppose. The names of the books 
are Greek ; and Josephus, in his treatise against Apion 7 , says that 
five of the books belong to Moses. In like manner Philo was 
acquainted with it. 8 We can perceive no internal evidence that 
the author himself marked the books in this manner, or at least 
the reviser of the canon; though Keil speaks of such evidence as 
decisive. 

The division in question embraces a period of 2515 years accord- 
ing to the common computation, and gives an account of one nation, 
preceded by a brief outline of the original state of mankind. We 
cannot say with Bishop Gray 9 that while there is admirable diversity 
of style it is always characterised by the stamp of the same author. 
The language is such as could scarcely have been exhibited in the 
earliest period of the Hebrew. It shows considerable cultivation. 

The Jews have uniformly ascribed the Pentateuch to Moses, and 
from them the tradition passed over to Christians, and became uni- 
versally current till the time of historical criticism. In addition to 

1 Einleitung, vol. iii. p. 757. - Einleitung, p. 65. 

3 Einleitung ins Alte Testament, p. 302. 4 Philologus Hebreeus, p. 45. 

5 Einleitung, i. 2. p. 156. 6 Kenaan, p. lxsxii. 

7 Lib. i. c. 8. 8 De Abraham, p. 274. ed. Colon. 

9 Key to the Old Testament, p. 42. ed. 1842. 



574 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

the Pentateuch, the Jews also allege that Moses wrote ten Psalms, 
viz. from xc. to xcix. inclusive. The title of the 90th ascribes it to 
him, A prayer of Moses the man of God. But this title need not be 
relied upon as authentic. The internal evidence of the Psalm itself 
must determine. As to the nine following ones, there is no proof 
whatever that they belong to Moses. Some have also thought that 
he wrote the book of Job. But this opinion must be discarded, as 
the book is not nearly so ancient. 

Various apocryphal writings are also ascribed to the same source, 
as the Apocalypse of Moses, from which Gregorius Syncellus thought 
that St. Paul took Gal. v. 6. and vi. 15. The Anabasis or Ascension 
of Moses is mentioned by Origen l , and in the Synopsis of Athanasius. 
From it the ninth verse of Jude's epistle is supposed to be taken. 
Little Genesis, another treatise, is mentioned by Epiphanius and 
Jerome, and was written in Hebrew. Cedrenus states that he took 
many things from it into his chronological history. Some other 
writings are also spoken of, to which references may be found in 
Fabricius. 2 It is evident that they are all fabrications belonging to 
the early times of Christianity. 

GENESIS. 

The first book of the Pentateuch is called by the Jews JVEW")?, 
B'reshith, from the initial word, i.e. in the beginning. Among Chris- 
tians it is denominated Genesis, Tivscrts, the title which it has in the 
Septuagint, meaning generation or creation, because it gives an account 
of the production of all things. 

It is divided by the Jews into twelve larger sections or h'T^S, par- 
shioth, and sometimes into forty-three smaller ones or ^"HP, sedarim. 
Neither of these divisions is suitable or useful. Nor is that of fifty 
chapters in the English Bible any better. 

The most general division of the book is into two parts, viz. : — 
I. The original history of mankind. II. The early history of Israsl. 
The former embraces the first eleven chapters ; the latter from the 
twelfth to the fiftieth inclusive. 

The first general division may be subdivided into the history of 
the world from the creation till the flood (chapters i. — v.); and from 
the flood till the call of Abraham (chapters vi. — xi.). The second 
general division resolves itself into three portions, viz. the history of 
Abraham (chapters xii. — xxv. 18.); of Isaac (chapters xxv. 19. — 
xxx vi. 43.); and of Jacob (chapters xxxvii. — 1.). The following is 
a synopsis of the general contents according to these five parts. 

1. An account of the creation of the world, of man's formation, his 
settlement in Paradise, his fall and expulsion from the garden. This 
is followed by an account of Adam's descendants to Noah, in whose 
time God determined to destroy men by the deluge, and to spare 
righteous Noah. (i. — v.) 

2. Noah is commanded to construct an ark in which he and his 

1 Uepl apx&v, sivc Dc principiis, lib. iii. c. 2. p. 274. ed. Eedepenning. 

2 Codex Pseudepigraphus, p. 835. et seqq. 



On the Book of Genesis. 575 

family should be preserved from the devouring element, together 
with the various classes of animals which would otherwise perish in 
the waters. After the flood, the fact of Noah's three sons being the 
sole fathers of the second world is then distinctly stated. The 
patriarch predicts the future fates of their respective descendants. 
This is followed by a brief genealogical notice of the immediate 
descendants of Noah's sons, comprehending certain nations of which 
they were the founders. We have next an account of the confusion 
of the one language and the consequent dispersion of mankind, with 
a list of Shem's descendants in the line from which Abraham sprang, 
(vi. — xi.) 

3. The general history of mankind having been completed, we are 
next presented with a particular history of leading individuals com- 
monly called the Patriarchs. Abraham is called out of Ur of the 
Chaldees into Canaan. The most prominent events in his life are 
noticed, such as, his separation from Lot, his meeting with Mel- 
chizedek king of Salem after the victory over the king of Sodom 
and his allies, the birth of Isaac under peculiar circumstances, Abra- 
ham's trial when he was commanded to offer his only son in sacrifice, 
the death and burial of Sarah, the marriage of Isaac to Rebecca, and 
Abraham's marriage to Keturah. The patriarch died at the age of 
175. (xii.— xxv. 18.) 

4. Here the history of Isaac, which was begun in connection with 
that of his father but subordinated to the latter, is resumed and 
continued till the period of his death. The most prominent parti- 
culars in it are the birth of twins, Jacob and Esau ; the project of 
Rebecca to deceive Isaac, and procure the blessing for Jacob which 
was intended for Esau. This is followed by Jacob's departure into 
Mesopotamia to his uncle Laban, his marriage, his return to Canaan, 
his meeting with Esau, an unhappy event in the life of Dinah his 
only daughter, his removal to Bethel, the death of Rachel, an ac- 
count of the age and death of Isaac, and a genealogical table of Esau's 
descendants, (xxv. 19 — xxxvi. 43.) 

5. This last part of Genesis contains the subsequent history of 
Jacob and his family till the death of Joseph. Owing to the envy 
of his brethren, excited by the father's undue fondness for Joseph, 
the latter is taken to Egypt and sold to Potiphar. This is followed 
by the conduct of Judah with respect to Tamar ; and Joseph's pros- 
perity and imprisonment. He is delivered, promoted in the court of 
Pharaoh : his brethren come into the country to buy corn, to whom 
on their second visit he reveals himself. Jacob comes down to 
Egypt and settles there with his family, pronounces prophetic bless- 
ings on his sons, and calmly surrenders his soul to him who gave it. 
His body is embalmed, and interred in Canaan. This is succeeded 
by the death and burial of Joseph, with which the book closes, 
(xxxvii. — 1.) 

According to the usual computation of time, the book of Genesis 
contains the history of about 2369 years ; but according to the 
larger reckoning of Hales 3619 years. It is better to abide by the 
former, since the basis on which the latter is founded is insecure. 



576 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

The first three chapters, which contain a description of the crea- 
tion and fall of man, have given rise to much discussion. The ques- 
tion whether they are to be understood in a literal or allegorical 
sense has been debated with great skill and vehemence. On the one 
hand, it has been affirmed, that the cosmogony is inconsistent with 
the conclusions of modern science, especially with geological pheno- 
mena ; while certain particulars in Eve's temptation by the serpent 
are inexplicable or improbable on the supposition of its being histo- 
rical. On the other hand, it is considered highly improbable that an 
allegorical description should be prefixed to and form a part of the 
literal history which follows ; while the New Testament contains 
various allusions or references to the creation, temptation, and fall, 
implying that they are truly and properly described. The common 
view has always been, that the chapters in question present a literal 
account, in plain prose, of the origin of the human race, and their 
fall. This is the more natural and obvious interpretation, such as 
would be apt to strike an ordinary reader of the Bible. In deciding 
between the mythic view and the purely historical one, there is not 
much proof or argument to rest upon. Most German divines adopt 
the former, even those of very different schools. On the contrary, 
English theologians adhere to the latter. It is true that a few in 
this country have advocated the mythic or allegorical view ; but they 
have been chiefly of the Unitarian persuasion, with the exception 
of Geddes. What has helped to exclude the mythic from English 
theology is the notion ascribed by many to mythus, as though it 
meant fable or fiction, a pure invention on the part of the sacred 
writer. But this is incorrect. There are myths at the basis of 
which truth and history lie, which are built up on a foundation of 
real history ; and even Knobel does not deny that there are histori- 
cal elements in the mythic view given of the primitive race of man- 
kind. Had he and his countrymen been less disposed to find few 
elements of the true and the historical in Genesis, they would have 
more effectually commended their sentiments to the calm attention of 
impartial inquirers. We do not think that the question is one of 
that vital importance which many attach to it. If it be held that 
God created man at first, male and female, in innocency and happi- 
ness; and that they fell by transgressing his command, entailing 
misery and death on all their posterity, it is of little moment in what 
particular mode these facts be described. Whether they be clothed in 
an allegorical dress or not, matters little, provided the facts be recog- 
nised. A mythic narrative may have a real, historical basis. And 
so in the present instance. The Almighty created all things out of 
nothing ; he furnished the world with its multitudinous creatures ; 
he formed man in his own image, a living rational creature, holy in 
thought and feeling ; man was tempted of evil and fell into sin ; in 
consequence of which he lost his purity of character and was doomed 
to toil, though a great Deliverer was provided for his deliverance 
from the curse to which he became subject ; — these are great 
truths lying in the primitive record, which must be maintained, in 
whatever manner the narrative is regarded, whether literally or alle- 



On the Book of Genesis. 577 

gorically. They are recognised in the New Testament, and presup- 
pose the necessity of redemption. 

It is often said, as it is by Maurice 1 , that the Mosaic narrative 
in the first three chapters is either wholly literal or wholly allego- 
rical — that there is no medium nor palliation. So too Horsley 2 
and Hengstenberg 3 appear to think, in their reasonings respecting 
the serpent. But we do not take this view of the matter. Some 
parts may be allegorical, others literal. Some things may be sym- 
bolical without others being so. A resort to allegory may be 
defended on the ground of necessity, or because the literal involves 
inextricable difficulty. Accordingly, many think that the serpent is a 
figurative and symbolical name given to Satan apart from an animal 
being used as an organ, without doing violence to the literal inter- 
pretation of the rest of the narrative. The intermixture of the 
literal and the figurative is common in Scripture. Hence we believe 
that the leading facts are not impaired by such as assume allegory in 
some parts of the description ; as in that of the temptation, and the 
agent employed in it. 

It is no disjmragement to the credibility of the account that the 
writer describes physical phenomena in the popular language of his 
day respecting them. He speaks of them optically, as they appeared 
then to an observer, not according to the principles of exact science. 
It was not his object to unfold scientific truth, but religious docti'ine. 
He was not a natural philosopher, but a religious teacher raised up 
and qualified of God for the purpose of conveying moral and spiritual 
ideas to the Jews and to the world at large. Hence great anxiety 
need not be evinced in reconciling his statements with the conclu- 
sions of modern science. Astronomy and geology may be prosecuted 
by their respective votaries without impugning the record in Genesis, 
because it was not meant to be a scientific one, conformed to the 
certain conclusions of natural science as they were to be developed 
in future times. The writer used the language of his time as he 
shared the ideas then current, else he would have been unintelligible 
to those for whom he was prompted to compose his history in the 
first instance. 

The question respecting the historical or mythical character of 
the earliest chapters of the book is only a part of the more general 
one relating to the contents of the whole. Here opinions are 
formed according to the doctrinal views of those who discuss the 
subject. Some, as Vatke, Von Bohlen, &c, affirm that all the con- 
tents of the book are unhistorical and mythological; others again, 
as Tuch and Knobel, think that they are interwoven with mythical 
elements, which can be separated from the historical ; while many, as 
Hengstenberg and Havernick, perceive throughout a consistent and 
truly historical impress. The latter justly remarks that " Genesis 
is a book consisting of two contrasting parts. The first part intro- 
duces us to the greatest problems of the human mind, such as the 
creation and the fall of man ; and the second, to the quiet solitude of 

1 History of Hindostan, vol. i. p. 369. 2 Theological Works, vol. v. p 17. 

3 Christologie, vol. i. p. 26. et seqq. 
VOL. II. P P 



578 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

a small defined circle of families. In the former, the most sublime 
and wonderful events are described with childlike simplicity ; while 
in the latter, on the contrary, the most simple and common occur- 
rences are interwoven with the sublimest thoughts and reflections, 
rendering the small family circle a whole world in history, and the 
principal actors iu it prototypes for a whole nation, and for all times. 
The contents in general are strictly religious. Not the least trace 
of mystery appears in it. Consequently there are no mythical state- 
ments, because whatever is mythical belongs to mythology, and 
Genesis plainly shows how very far remote the Hebrew mode of 
thinking was from mythical poetry, which might have found ample 
opportunity of being brought into play when the writer began to 
sketch the early time of the creation. It is true that the narratives 
are fraught with wonders. But primeval wonders, the marvellous 
deeds of God, are the very subject of Genesis. None of these won- 
ders, however, bear a fantastical impress, and there is no useless 
prodigality of them. They are all penetrated and connected by one 
common leading idea, and are all related to the counsel of God for 
the salvation of man. This principle sheds its lustrous beams 
through the whole*of Genesis ; therefore the wonders therein related 
are as little to be ascribed to the invention and imagination of man 
as the whole plan of God for human salvation. The foundation 
of the divine theocratical institution throws a strong light upon the 
early patriarchal times ; the reality of the one proves the reality of 
the other, as described in Genesis." 1 

The book of Genesis contains some direct prophecies concerning 
Christ, as in iii. 15., xii. 3., xviii. 18., xxii. 18., xxvi. 4., xxviii. 14., 
xlix. 10. 

Those who hold that it was written by Moses differ about the time 
when he composed it. This was to be expected, since in the absence 
of all data for determining the period in his life, we are left to mere 
conjecture. Some think, with Eusebius, that it was written while he 
kept the flocks of his father-in-law in the wilderness of Midian; 
Theodoret and others suppose that it was written after the pro r 
mulgation of the law from Mount Sinai; while a third hypothesis 
has been proposed by some learned Jews, that God dictated to Moses 
all the contents of the book during the forty days he had intercourse 
with the Deity on Sinai, and that after his descent he committed the 
whole to writing. Such conjectures are worthless. 

EXODUS. 
The title of the book we are accustomed to call Exodus is among 
the Jews nift^ n?N1 Velleh Shemoth, that is, these are the names, which 
are the initial words. Exodus is derived from the Septuagint version 
E^ohos, a departure, because the book narrates the departure of the 
Israelites from Egypt. It is divided by the Jews into eleven par- 
skioth or larger sections, and twenty-nine sedarim or smaller ones. 
In our English Bibles there are forty chapters. 

1 Kitto's Cyclopaedia, art. Genesis. 



On the Book of Exodus. 579 

The book resolves itself into three parts, viz. : 

I. The preparations made for carrying into effect the promises 
made to the patriarchs, (ch. i. — xii. 28.) 

II. The conducting of Israel out of Egypt to Sinai, (xii. 29 — 
xviii.) 

III. The establishment of the theocracy, (xix. — xl.) 

These leading divisions may be resolved into the following parts, 
i. The increase of Jacob's posterity so that they became a numerous 
people ; their oppression in Egypt ; the birth and wonderful pre- 
servation of Moses ; his calling and qualification to be the leader of 
Israel out of Egypt, (ch. i. — vi. 13.) ii. The steps which led to 
the deliverance of Israel, viz. the sending of Moses and Aaron to 
Pharaoh, the signs and wonders which preceded and accompanied the 
march from Egypt, together with the institution of the passover. 
(vi. 14 — xii. 28.) iii. The departure itself, with the arrangements 
respecting the passover and sanctification of the first-born. (xii. 29 — 
xiii. 16.) iv. The passage through the Red Sea, the destruction of 
Pharaoh and his host, and the thanksgiving of Moses for the mira- 
culous deliverance, (xiii. 17 — xv. 21.) v. The journey of the Israel- 
ites to the mount of God, and the arrival of Jethro at the camp, 
with his counsel, (xv. 22 — xviii.) vi. The preparation of the people 
by Moses for the renewing of the covenant with God, the promulga- 
tion of the ten commandments, and the judicial law. (xix. — xxiv. 11.) 
vii. Commands respecting the erection of the tabernacle on receiving 
the tables of stone, (xxiv. 12 — xxxi. 18.) viii. A description of the 
idolatry of the Israelites and their restoration to the divine favour 
at Moses's intercession, (xxxii. — xxxiv.) ix. An account of the 
building and erection of the tabernacle, i. e. the execution of Avhat 
was commanded in xxv. — xxxi. (xxxv. — xl.) 

Exodus contains a history of about one hundred and forty -five 
years, i. e. from 2369 to 2514. But Kalisch makes it to contain the 
history of 360 years, from 1910 to 2270 a.m. 1 Rivet has observed 
that twenty-five passages are quoted by Christ and his apostles out 
of the book in express words. This is not correct, unless passages 
quoted twice be numbered as two. The same writer states that there 
are nineteen general references or allusions to the sense. 2 

Those who think that Moses wrote the book of Exodus must refer 
it to a period subsequent to the giving of the law on Mount Sinai 
and the erection of the tabernacle, because things cannot be histo- 
rically related till after they took place. The same critics also 
believe that there are some predictions in it of which it relates the 
accomplishment. Thus it foretels the deliverance of the Jews (vii. 
4, 5.) which was effected. It predicts some events which were not 
fulfilled till after Moses's death, as that relating to the conquest of 
Canaan and the future division of the land. (xv. 14 — 17., xxiii. 22, 
23. 31., xxxiii. 2., xxxiv. 23, 24.) And as the book represents the 
ancient church persecuted, delivered, and preserved, God exercising 
a providential care over it, we are warranted in applying many things 

1 Historical and Critical Commentary on Exodus, Introduction, p. xxi. 

2 Riveti Opera Theologica, folio, vol. i. p. 723. 



580 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

to the Christian church in her passage through this life to the 
heavenly Canaan ; especially as some of the New Testament writers 
have used the history in this manner. (1 Cor. x. 1. &c, and Hebrews 
iii. iv. viii. ix.) 

Though much has been written respecting the plagues inflicted 
on Egypt, and the imitations of them by the Egyptians, little light 
has been thrown upon the transactions by that means. Bryant has 
many fancies in his treatise on the subject. 1 Thus he supposes that 
they were adapted to display the vanity of the idols and false gods 
worshipped by the Egyptians. By the first plague the Nile was 
turned into blood. It is very true that divine honours were paid to 
the Nile, and that blood was an object of abhorrence to the Egyp- 
tians. But Hengstenberg thinks that blood here means no more 
than a blood-red colour. 2 In the second plague, frogs were produced 
in immense numbers, by which means both land and water were 
polluted. The plague of lice can hardly have been intended, as 
Bryant thinks, to reprove the absurd superstition of the Egyptians, 
who believed that it would be a great profanation of the temple into 
which they were going if they entered it with such animalcules upon 
their person ; because the word translated lice means gnats. The 
plague of flies is supposed to refer to the gad-fly, a god which they 
worshipped, and which thus became their torture ; but the fact as- 
sumed is questionable. The same observation applies to the next 
plague, that of the cattle. Horses are assigned the first place in the 
enumeration of the animals whom the plague should seize ; and we 
do not know that the Egyptians worshipped horses. Neither can it 
be shown that the plague of boils was intended to show the vanity 
of their gods. Aaron and Moses were commanded to take ashes of 
the furnace, and to scatter them toward heaven that they might be 
wafted over the face of the country. The seventh plague was a 
severe tempest, accompanied with hail and rain. That this had a 
reference to Isis and Osiris, deities of water and fire respectively, 
as if they were unable to protect the country from the hail and fire 
of God, is fanciful. Nor had the plague of locusts allusion to Isis 
and Serapis, who were supposed to protect the country from locusts. 
In the ninth plague, the darkness, it were idle to refer to the same 
end, as if it were meant to show the vanity of their idol deities. It 
is merely imaginary to allege that the heavenly hosts, the objects of 
worship, are thus themselves shown to be under divine control. It 
seems evident that the last plague, the destruction of the first-born, 
was most equitable, because, after the Egyptians had been preserved 
by one of the Israelitish family, they murdered the children of that 
people to whom they had been so much indebted. 

It is generally agreed, at the present time, that the Pharaoh in 
whose reign Moses led the children of Israel out of Egypt was 
a prince of the eighteenth dynasty. Wilkinson supposes that the 
exodus took place under Thothmes III., 1495 B. c. ; Kalisch, under 
Ramses V., Amenophis, the last king of the eighteenth dynasty, 

1 See his Observations upon the Plagues inflicted upon the Egyptians, 2d edition ; ,.810. 

2 Egypt aiK l tnc Books of Moses, translated by Robbins, p. 106. 



On the Booh, of Leviticus. 581 

1491 B.C. Other opinions may be seen in the latter writer. There 
is little doubt that most of the events recorded in the Pentateuch 
occurred in the eighteenth dynasty, which was a period of conquest. 
The period during which the Israelites were in Egypt is given as 
430 years. (Exod. xii. 40. ; compare Gen. xv. 13.) The Epistle to the 
Galatians numbers 430 years from the time when the promise was 
made to Abraham to the giving of the law at Sinai. Hence the 
actual time passed in Egypt is supposed to be 215 years, 215 having 
elapsed from the time of the promise till the Israelites went into the 
land out of Canaan. Kalisch, however, endeavours to prove that 
the sojourn in Egypt lasted 430 years. 1 Much has been written 
against the shorter time (215), as if the Israelites could not possibly 
have multiplied so fast during it as to amount to the great army 
that passed through the Red Sea. Even the full number 430 has 
been deemed insufficient to account for the increase. Hence both 
are deemed by some unhistorical and mythical. But we see no solid 
reason for departing even from the lesser number. 

Those who find mythic elements in Genesis naturally look for 
them in Exodus also. They suppose that influences of an unhis- 
torical nature arose during the interval between the events and 
record. To such influences are referred the representation given of 
the twelve plagues, the borrowing of the jewels of silver and gold, 
the antecedence of God himself in a pillar of cloud and fire, the 
narrative of the passage through the Red Sea. Traditional elements 
have likewise been discovered in the narratives respecting the manna 
and the quails. " It has also been suspected that the formation of the 
sanctuary, as narrated in various chapters, presents similar elements, 
in consequence of its splendour and artistic skill. But such assump- 
tions require to be sustained by evidence before they be entitled to 
reception. The exaggerations and creations of tradition may possibly 
be in portions here and there, but probability is against them. It is 
much safer and more natural to understand the narratives in their 
plain, historical sense, leaving miracles and wonders to remain as 
they are ; since they are appropriate and worthy of the Deity in a 
scheme of human redemption essentially supernatural. 



LEVITICUS. 

The third book of the Pentateuch is termed by the Jews N?i?*!!, 
vayyikra, and he called, from its initial word. In the Greek version, 
it is Xsvltlkov, whence the English Leviticus arises. It is divided 
by the Jews into ten parshioth ; and in the English version, into 
twenty-seven chapters. It is most naturally resolved into five parts. 

I. The laws concerning sacrifices, (ch. i. — vii.) Here are enume- 
rated the burnt-offering (ch. i.), the meat-offerings (ii.), the peace- 
offering (hi.), the offering presented for sins of ignorance (iv. v.), 
the trespass-offering for sins knowingly committed (vi. vii.). 

1 Historical and Critical Commentary on the Old Testament, Exodus, Introduction, 
p. xl. 

p r 3 



582 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

II. The anointing of the tabernacle and the consecration of the 
priests, with various arrangements respecting them. This is followed 
by the punishment of Nadab and Abihu. (viii. — x.) 

III. Regulations respecting clean and unclean animals, purity and 
impurity of men, the yearly purification of the sanctuary from all 
pollution, by the great day of atonement, (xi. — xvi.) 

IV. Laws regarding various offences and crimes which could not 
be atoned for, but must draw punishment after them. (xvii. — xx.) 

V. Regulations respecting the spotlessness of priests and sacrifices, 
respecting the seven great festivals, viz. the sabbath, the passover, 
the feast of first fruits, the feast of pentecost, of trumpets, the great 
day of atonement, and the feast of tabernacles, with various promises 
and threatenings. (xxi. — xxvi.) The last chapter, containing com- 
mandments respecting vows, things devoted and tithes, forms an ap- 
pendix, (xxvii.) 

Leviticus presents the historical progress of the legislation which 
began at Sinai. Hence we need not expect to find the laws it details, 
in a systematic order. There is indeed a certain order, but it is not 
strictly followed out. Thus something of a historical nature is 
inserted in viii. — x. ; and the law concerning the preparation of the 
sacred oil and the due manifestation of the shewbread in xxiv. 1 — 9. 
is in connection with xxii. 17., &c rather than xxiii. 

There is no doubt that the Levitical law had a spiritual mean- 
ing. Its sacrifices and oblations were significant of the atonement 
made by Christ. They pointed to better things to come ; and were 
intended to prepare the way for them, as we see by the Epistle 
to the Hebrews and various allusions in the writings of Paul. 
The spiritual interpretation, however, of the ritual law must not be 
carried too far, as it has often been by the aid of a lively imagina- 
tion. Though prefigurative of evangelical institutions, fanciful types 
and allusions should be avoided. 

It has been inferred from a comparison of Exod. xl. 17. with 
Numb. i. 1., that the book contains the history of about a month, 
i. e. from the erection of the tabernacle to the numbering of the 
people who were fit for war, a.m. 2514. The laws and rites which 
it speaks of were delivered to Moses in the first month of the second 
year after the departure from Egypt. 

There is one remarkable prophecy in the book, viz. that in which 
it is said that every sixth year should produce a superfluity to supply 
the deficiencies of the seventh or sabbatical year, when the land 
was to remain unsown, (xxv. 20 — 22.) But indeed the entire book 
has a prophetical character, which is especially prominent in xxv. 
and xxvi., where the law refers to the whole future of the nation. 
Such places show that the law had not an external tendency merely, 
but was intended to regulate the whole national life and consecrate it 
to God. 

Many of the rites prescribed in the book before us appear to have 
been taken from those of the Egyptians. Thus the linen garments 
of the priests, the long hair of the Nazarites, the offering of the first 
fruits, and similar ordinances, betray an Egyptian origin. All were 



On the Book of Numbers. 583 

rejected that savoured of or countenanced idolatry, or were unsuit- 
able to the national character and state of the Israelites. The wis- 
dom of not introducing new rites and customs is obvious. The 
people, rude and uncultivated as they were, would have been reluc- 
tant to observe strange regulations. They adhered with pertinacity 
to what they had learned and seen. Hence we perceive the pro- 
priety of retaining as many old ordinances and ceremonies as were 
adapted to the purpose which God had in view by giving the Levi- 
tical law. 

One part of Leviticus particularly is supposed to have a mythical 
aspect, viz. viii. — x. This is grounded on the miracle related in ix. 24. 
But we cannot see the force or propriety of the assumption. Surely 
the passage has all the characteristics of true history. 



NUMBERS. 

The fourth book of the Old Testament is called "G.1% and he spake, 
from the initial word. It is also called 13*1)33, in the wilderness, from 
the fifth word in the first verse, because it relates the transactions of 
the Israelites in the wilderness. In the Septuagint it is called apiO/xoi, 
Numbers, because it contains an account of the numbering of the 
people. From the enumeration of the several tribes and families it 
would appear that the number of fighting men above twenty years of 
age was 600,000. 

The book is divided by the Jews into ten parshioth, and in the 
English into thirty-six chapters. It consists of three parts. 

I. The numbering of the people, as also additions to the laws given 
in Exodus and Leviticus, (i. — x. 10.) 

II. The further events in the wilderness, beginning with the de- 
parture of the people from Sinai, i. e. from the second year of the 
exodus to the commencement of the fortieth year of the entire wan- 
dering, with the laws promulgated during that time. (x. 11 — xix.) 

III. The occurrences and prescriptions in the first ten months of 
the fortieth year. (xx. — xxxvi.) These three divisions include the 
following paragraphs and particulars. 

I. Under this general head are comprehended, 1. The enumerat- 
ing and marshalling of the twelve tribes, (i. — iv.) 2. Various regula- 
tions respecting the purification of the camp and people, the trial of the 
suspected adulteress, the institution of the Nazariteship, the offering 
of the princes at the dedication of the tabernacle, and the consecra- 
tion of the Levites. (v. — viii.) 3. The celebration of the passover and 
the use of the silver trumpets, (ix. x. 10.) 

II. 4. The breaking up of the camp. (x. 11 — 35.) 5. The murmur- 
ing of the people at Tabera, followed by the punishment with fire; 
the loathing of manna and murmuring for flesh, punished by the 
sending of quails and a pestilence ; the murmuring of Aaron and 
Miriam against Moses, punished with leprosy in the case of Miriam ; 
the sending of the spies into the promised land, and their evil report 



584 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

of it ; the murmuring of the people at Kadesh Barnea, in consequence 
of which they were excluded from the land of promise, while the 
men who brought the evil report died of a plague, (xi. — xiv.) 6. Laws 
respecting meat-offerings and firstling gifts, sins of ignorance and 
presumption, with the history of a sabbath-breaker, and the law re- 
specting fringes in garments, (xv.) 7. The rebellion of Korah, Dathan, 
Abiram and their followers, with their punishment ; the murmuring 
of the people against Moses and Aaron, and their punishment ; the 
confirmation of the Aaronic priesthood, with various regulations re- 
specting the priests and Levites. (xvi. — xviii.) 8. Regulations con- 
cerning the water of separation made with the ashes of a red heifer, 
and its use in purifying him who contracted defilement by touching 
a dead body, (xix.) 

III. 9. Displeasure of the people with Moses and Aaron on ac- 
count of water in the wilderness of Zin, the command addressed to 
the king of Edom, Aaron's death, victory over the king of Arad, 
murmuring of the people, and their punishment by means of fiery 
serpents, march from Mount Hor to Pisgah, and defeat of the kings 
of Sihon and Og. (xx. xxi.) 10. Transactions in the plains of Moab, 
Balaam and his prophecies, (xxii. — xxiv.) 11. Idolatry of the Israel- 
ites and its punishment, with a new census of the people, (xxv. xxvi.) 
12. The law of inheritances, election and dedication of Joshua to be 
the leader of the people into Canaan, (xxvii.) 13. Prescriptions re- 
lating to feast-offerings and vows, (xxviii. — xxx.) 14. Spoiling of the 
Midianites, and partition of the land among the tribes of Reuben, 
Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh. (xxxi. xxxii.) 15. Survey of 
the several stages of the journeyings. (xxxiii. 1 — 49.) 16. Repetition 
of the law commanding the expulsion of the Canaanites, regulations 
respecting the borders and division of Canaan among the other 
tribes, the cities of the Levites and of refuge, as also concerning the 
marriage of heiresses, (xxxiii. 50 — xxxvi.) From this review it ap- 
pears that the additions made to the two preceding books in this one 
belong particularly to the Levitical and sacerdotal code. In the his- 
torical narrative of events laws are interposed in xv. xviii. and xix., 
which are more of a jurisprudential nature. No definite plan is per- 
ceivable in the book. 

Most of the events described took place in the second and thirty- 
eighth years of the wandering. Little or nothing is reported of by 
far the greater portion of the forty years. Nothing remarkable 
occurred in them, or no record of it has been preserved. 

Those who think that Moses wrote the book infer, from xxxvi. 
13., that he did so in the plains of Moab. 

The history of Balaam, of whom we read in this book, is beset 
with many difficulties. Let us glance at some of them. 

1. Was he a true prophet or an impostor? The greater number 
of scholars hold the former view, rightly as we believe. He possessed 
the prophetic spirit, so that he foretold things future. Though his 
character was not good, this is no valid reason for denying him the 
name of prophet. 

2. The narrative in xxii. 22 — 35. has been variously interpreted. 



On the Booh of Numbers. 585 

Some think that the ass really spake, uttering intelligible words. 
Advocating a literal interpretation, they quote in favour of it 
2 Peter ii. 16. " The dumb ass speaking with a man's voice, re- 
proved the madness of the prophet." This testimony would be all 
but decisive could the authenticity of 2nd Peter be relied upon. It 
is also urged, that in a historical work, the historical and literal 
character of the narrative is alone appropriate ; that it is very difficult 
to determine where the vision begins and ends, supposing the oc- 
currences to have taken place in vision; and that Jehovah 's opening the 
mouth of the ass (verse 28.) must have been an external act. On the 
other hand, those who think that the speaking of the ass and the ap- 
pearance of the angel occurred to Balaam in vision, refer to the fact 
that dreams and visions were usual methods by which God revealed 
himself to the prophets ; that Balaam speaks of himself, in chapter 
xxiv. 3, 4. 15., as the man who had his eyes shut, but who had them 
opened in prophetic ecstasy ; that he expressed no surprise at hearing 
the ass speak, and that neither his servants nor the Moabitish princes 
seem to have witnessed any supernatural phenomenon. We believe 
the latter opinion to be the more probable one. It has been main- 
tained by Maimonides, Michaelis, Dathe, Hengstenberg, &c. 

3. The sublime prophecy in Numb. xxiv. 17. 19. has also given 
rise to different explanations. It is very generally applied to Jesus 
Christ, " the bright and morning star," concerning w x hom the Magi 
inquired " where is he that is born King of the Jews ? for we have 
seen his star in the East, and are come to worship him." But to this 
there are strong objections, as Hengstenberg has shown. 1 The 
mighty prince who should arise from the people of Israel and conquer 
the kingdoms of Moab and Edom was probably David, for he first 
subdued those nations. (2 Sam. viii. 2. 14.) It is altogether unlikely 
that the reference is to David primarily and literally, to Messiah in 
its full import and secondarily. A double sense here is at least 
unnecessary. 

4. As to the contemporaneousness of this oracle with the rest of 
the book, or as some would call it its authenticity, we can only refer 
to the chief writers on both sides. De Wette thinks 2 that it was 
composed in praise of the Jewish people after Moab and Edom had 
been subdued ; Bleek 3 , immediately after the Amalekites had been 
conquered by Saul (1 Sam. xv. 7, 8.). But Hengstenberg has ad- 
duced powerful arguments to show its authenticity. 

It will be observed, that there are two different numberings of the 
Israelites in the book of Numbers, the first of which took place in 
the beginning of the second year after their departure from Egypt 
(i. andii.); the second in the plains of Moab, towards the end of 
their wilderness wanderings (xxvi.). If they be distinct transactions, 
it will be found that in all the tribes there were only 61,020 men at 
the second census less than at the first, though the great majority of 



Christologie, vol. i. p. 80. et seqq. 2 Beitrage, u. s, w. p. 364. et seqq. 

In Eoscnmiillcr's Exeget. Repertor. i. 35. et seqq. 



586 



Introduction to the Old Testament. 



rst enumeration, ch. i. 


Second do. ch. 


xxvi. 




Reuben - 


46,500 


- 


43,730 


- 


2,770 decrease. 


Simeon - 


59,300 


- 


22,200 


- 


37,100 


Gad 


45,650 


- 


40,500 


- 


5,150 


Judah 


74,600 


- 


76,500 


- 


1,900 increase. 


Issachar - 


54,400 


- 


64,300 


- 


9,900 


Zebulon - 


57,400 


- 


60,500 


- 


3,100 


Manasseh 


32,200 


- 


52,700 


- 


20,500 


Ephraim - 


40,500 


- 


32,500 


- 


8,000 decrease. 


Benjamin - 


35,400 


- 


45,600 


- 


10,200 increase. 


Dan 


62,700 


- 


64,400 


- 


1,700 


Asher 


41,500 


- 


53,400 


- 


11,900 


Naphtali - 


53,400 


- 


45,400 


- 


8,000 decrease. 



Total 603,550 

Decrease in all 61,020. 
Levites, ch. iii. 22,300 - ch. 



30 1,820 decrease on 

the whole in 3 years. 
Increase in all 59,200. 
23,300 - increase 1,000. 



The following is a table of the stations of the Israelites in the 
wilderness. 



Exodus. 

From Rameses (xii. 37.) - 

1. Succoth (xii. 37.) - - - 

2. Etham (xiii. 20.) - 

3. Pi-hahiroth (xiv. 2.) 

4. After passing through the Red Sea, 

three days' march into the desert 
of Shur (xiv. 22., xv. 22.) 

5. Marah (xv. 23.) - 

6. Elim (xv. 27.) 
7. 

8. Desert of Sin (xvi. 1.) 

9. ----- - 

10. 

11. Rephidim (xvii. 1.) 

12. Wilderness of Sinai (xix. 1.) 

Numbers x. — xx. 
Erom the wilderness of Sinai (x. 12.) 

13. Taberah (xi. 3. ; Deut. ix. 22.) 

14. Kibroth-Hattaavah (xi. 34.) 

15. Hazeroth (xi. 35.) - 

16. Kadesh, in the desert of Paran 

(xii. 16., xiii. 26. Compare also 
Deut. i. 2. 19.). Here they turn 
back and wander for 38 years. 
(Numbers xiv. 25. &c.) 

17. 

18. 

19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. ...... 

26. 

27. 

28. - 

29. 

30. - 

31. - - 

32. ----- - 

33. 



Numbers. 
From Rameses (xxxiii. 3.), 
Succoth (xxxiii. 5.). 
Etham (xxxiii. 6.). 
Pi-hahiroth (xxxiii. 7.). 
After passage three days' march in the desert 
of Etham (xxxiii. 8.). 

Marah (xxxiii. 8.). 

Elim (xxxiii. 9.). 

Encampment by the Red Sea (xxxiii. 10.). 

Desert of Sin (xxxiii. 1 1 .). 

Dophkah (xxxiii. 12.). 

Alush (xxxiii. 13.). 

Rephidim (xxxiii. 14.). 

Wilderness of Sinai (xxxiii. 15.). 

Numbers xxxiii. 
From the wilderness of Sinai (verse 16.). 

Kibroth-Hattaavah (16.). 
Hazeroth (17.). 



Rithmah (18.) 
Rimmon Parez (19). 
Libnah (20.). 
Rissah (21.). 
Kehelathah (22.). 
Mount Shapher (23.). 
Haradah (24.). 
Makheloth (25.). 
Tahath (26.). 
Tarah (27.). 
Mithcah (28.). 
Hashmonah (29.). 
Moseroth (30.). 
Bene-jaakan (31.). 
Hor-hngidgad (32.). 
Jotbathah (33.). 
Ebronah (34.). 



PENINSULA OF 
illustrating the 

J U R M IT J M G S 0?T J-J I 

FROM EGYPT TOTHELANDOF 
CANAAN. 

Geographical ililes 60 =1 degree 



English Miles 69 15-ldegr 



I'\ 



SINAI 

I after Robinson 

Jim 







& A 






rW 









On the Book of Deuteronomy. 



587 



Kadesh again (xx. 1.) 

Numb. xx. xxi. ; Deut. i. ii. x. 

From Kadesh (xx. 22.) 

Beeroth Bene-jaakan (Deut. x. 6.) 

Mount Hor (Numb. xx. 22.), or 

Mosera (Deut. x. 6.) 
Gudgodah (Deut. x. 7.) 
Jotbath (Deut. x. 7.) 
Way of the Red Sea (Numb. xxi. 4.) 

by Elath and Ezion-gaber (Deut. 

ii. 8.). 



Oboth 

Ije-abarim (Numb. xxi. 11.) 

The brook Zered (Numb. xxi. 12. 

Deut. ii. 13, 14.). 
Arnon (Numb, xxi.) 



Beer in the desert (Numb. xxi. 
16. 18.). 

Mattanah (xxi. 18.) 

Nahaliel (xxi. 19.) 

Bamoth (xxi. 19.) - 

Pisgath, part of Abarim (xxi. 20.) - 

By the way of Bashan to the plains 
of Moab by Jordan, near Jericho 
(Numb. xxi. 33., xxii. 1.). 



Ezion-gaber (35.). 
Kadesh (36.). 

Numbers xxxiii. 
From Kadesh (37.). 

- Mount Hor (37.). 



Zalmonah (41.). 

Punon (42.) 

Oboth (43.). 

Ije-abarim or Jim (44, 45.). 



Dibon-gad (45.). 
Almon-diblathaim (46.). 



Mountains of Abarim (47.). 

Plains of Moab by Jordan, near Jericho (48.). 



In this table it is assumed that the Israelites were twice at 
Kadesh, which has been advocated both by Robinson and Von 
Raumer. It should not however be concealed that there are diffi- 
culties connected with the view in question which cannot be removed 
quite satisfactorily. Ewald 1 and Winer 2 are inclined to adopt but 
one stay at the place. In that case the difficulties are greater. We 
cannot enter here on their examination, but may refer to the brief 
survey given by Winer in his Kealworterbuch. As the best elu- 
cidation of this subject, the reader is referred to the accompany- 
ing map. 

Rationalistic criticism has assigned a mythical character to many 
parts of the book before us. Narratives like the history of Balaam, 
the rebellion of the sons of Korah, &c, have been suspected of 
bearing that colouring. The repetition of the events connected with 
the manna and the quails has also appeared to imply that the same 
facts lie at the basis, one account being merely a corrupt version of 
the other. But such conjectures are wild and wayward. It is better 
to abide by the plain historical nature of the book as it stands. 



DEUTERONOMY. 

The fifth book is called by the Jews Dnn?n Pip, these are the words, 
because they are the initial words. They also term it rninn n^'E, 
repetition of the lata, from xvii. 18., or simply ii)&V } repetition. The 



1 Gcschichte des Volkcs Israel, vol. ii. p. 198. 

2 Kealworterbuch, vol. ii. art. TViiste. 



PENINSULA OF 

SIffAl, 

villi 

lAItl 01' ilOT"i"T 

illustrating the 
JUJUBMEYQSC8 Of 
aSRAEMTES 

FROM EGYPT TO THE LAND 



BngulilfiLu6&15 Ifegfet 



R E A 





5 I S AI J j 






■'■ ; '/??v 




.^-.A tk,£ 









v I , r 



588 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Greeks call it Asurspovofuov, i. e. the second law, because it contains 
a second statement of the laws which had been already promulgated. 
The Jews divide it into eleven parshioth. In the English Bible it 
contains thirty-four chapters. The contents may be thus arranged 
in four divisions. 

I. In the first part Moses recapitulates the history of the journey 
through the wilderness, for the admonition and warning of the people, 
setting before them the events which had taken place from Horeb to 
the Jordan, and teaching that the goodness of God should keep them 
from idolatry and make them obedient to the divine commands. 
(i.— iv. 40.) 

II. contains a repetition of the laws already given, the moral, cere- 
monial, and judicial. Various modifications and limitations of them 
are introduced. Under this head are the following subdivisions. A 
repetition of the ten commandments and their effect upon the people, 
(v. 1 — 33.) An exposition and enforcement of the first command- 
ment, (vi.) An exposition of the second commandment, with strict 
prohibition of all communion with the nations, for fear of idolatry, 
(vii.) This is followed by a strong exhortation to obedience founded 
upon the dealings of God with the people, (viii. — xi.) Various 
ceremonial regulations are then repeated, (xii. — xvi.) From xvii. to 
xxvi. is occupied with a recapitulation, explanation, and modification 
of the judicial law. 

III. In this portion are directions to build on Mount Ebal a stone 
altar, to engrave the laws on stone and set them up there ; after 
which blessings should be pronounced on those who kept, and curses 
on those who broke, them. This is followed by exhortations to 
obedience, and promises of pardon to the penitent, (xxvii. — xxx.) 

IV. This part gives an account of the delivery of the law-book to 
the Levites, with the words of Moses spoken on that occasion, and 
his triumphal song. (xxxi. — xxxii. 47.) This is followed by three 
appendixes, viz., the announcement of the death of Moses, his blessing 
of the twelve tribes, and the narrative of his death, (xxxii. 48 
— xxxiv.) 

The time comprised in the book of Deuteronomy is nearly two 
months, i. e. the last two of the fortieth year after the exodus. 

Those who believe that Moses was the writer suppose that he 
composed the book in the plains of Moab shortly before his death 
(comp. Deut. i. 5. with xxxiv. 1.), and resort to various hypo- 
theses respecting the 34th chapter, viz., that it was added to complete 
the history, — the first eight verses immediately after Moses's death by 
Joshua his successor, the last four by some later writer, such as 
Samuel or Ezra. Or, they conjecture that what now forms the last 
chapter of Deuteronomy was formerly the first of Joshua, but was 
removed thence and joined to Deuteronomy by way of supplement. 
It is very difficult to tell the point at which the supplement to 
Deuteronomy by a later hand commences ; and hence the great diver- 
sity of opinion respecting its extent. Some critics indeed deny that- 
the narrative of Moses's death and burial proceeded from any other 
than the writer of the other part, whom they refuse to admit as Moses, 



On the Book of Deuteronomy. 589 

affirming that the passage both in diction and manner coincides with 
what goes before, and appears a necessary conclusion of the whole ; 
but this is opposed by strong considerations. In favour of the Mosaic 
authorship different passages are referred to where it is cited as his, 
while numerous places are produced from it in testimony, by Christ 
and his apostles. (Compare Josh. i. 5. 7. ; 1 Kings ii. 3. ; 2 Chron. 
xxv. 4. ; Dan. ix. 13. &c. ; and Matt. iv. 4. ; John i. 45. ; Acts iii. 
22. ; Gal. iii. 13.) These proofs, however, are not all valid or 
equally appropriate. 

There is one prophecy in the book relative to the Messiah, viz., 
Deut. xviii. 15. 18, 19. This is shown by Acts iii. 22, 23., vii. 37. 
(comp. John v. 46.). But whether it refers to him exclusively admits 
of grave doubts. We agree with those who take the word fc^rn 
collectively, including the entire order and succession of prophets ; 
though the prediction was not fulfilled till Christ appeared in the 
flesh as the great prophet whom those who held that office under the 
Old Testament faintly shadowed forth and prefigured. But we must 
refer to Hengstenberg's dissertation on the passage. 1 

The entire Mosaic legislation is divided into three leading parts, viz. 
the moral, the ritual, and the civil code. The basis of the moral code 
is the ten commandments, the law Avhich was originally written on 
the heart of man, but was afterwards effaced by sin. Its fundamental 
principle is supreme love to God. The other moral precepts are 
merely explanations, developments, or more exact determinations of 
the ten commandments, which are scattered through all the books 
except Genesis. 

The ritual or ceremonial law contains regulations relating to the 
service of God and everything connected with it. Most of them are 
founded on considerations of time and place, and are therefore tem- 
porary. They were however precursors to Christianity ; and the 
spirit of them was in part transfused into the gospel. After the 
advent of Christ they were either abolished, or retained under 
another form and deeper meaning. 

The civil law contains ordinances respecting domestic and public 
life, such as marriage and divorce, personal and landed property, 
debt, strangers, the Canaanites. Here, again, the injunctions have no 
permanent obligation, being founded upon temporary and local rela- 
tions. Hence most were abolished or changed by the introduction of 
Christianity. 

The three parts of the Mosaic legislation are intimately connected. 
They are not described or spoken of separately, but are rather 
blended together throughout the Pentateuch. Hence it is not easy 
to dissever them and bring all passages belonging to each under one 
head. The following table presents one of the best attempts to 
arrange the several parts of the Pentateuch under one or another of 
the three general divisions. It is from Wilson's Archaeological 
Dictionary, article Laiv. 

1 See Christologie, vol. i. p. 83. et seqq. 



590 



Introduction to the Old Testament. 



The First Class. 

The Moral Law written on the Too Tables, containing the Ten Command- 
ments. 



The first Tabic, which includes 

The First Commandment, 

The Second Commandment, 

The Third Commandment, 

The Fourth Commandment, 

The second Table, including 
The Fifth Commandment, 
The Sixth Commandment, 
The Seventh Commandment, - 
The Eighth Commandment, 
The Ninth Commandment, 
The Tenth Commandment, 
The Sum of both Tables, 



Exod. 


Levitic. 


Numb. 


Deut. 


chap. 


chap. 


chap. 


chap. 


20. 13. 


— 


" r 


5, 6. 
4,5,6,7,8. 


20.23.34. 


19.26.18. 


:l 


10,11,12, 
13. 


20. 23. 


— 




5. 


20.23.31. 
34, 35. 


19.23.26. 


- 


- 


20. 22. 


19. 





5. 


20. 


19. 





5. 


20. 


18, 19. 


— 


5. 23. 


20. 22. 


19. 





5. 


20. 23. 


19. 





5. 


20. 


— 


— 


5. 


— 


19. 


— 


6. 






The Second Class. 
The Ceremonial Law may be fitly reduced to the following Heads ; viz. 



Of the holy place, - - - - 

Of the matter and structure of the tabernacle, - 1 

Of the instruments of the same ; viz. 

The laver of brass, - 

The altar of burnt offering, 

The altar of incense, - 

The candlestick of pure gold, - 

The table of shew-bread, - - 

Of the priests and their vestments for glory and 

beauty, - 

Of the choosing of the Levites, - - 

Of the priest's office in general, 

Of their office in teaching, - 

Of their office in blessing, 

Of their office in offering, which function largely 
spreading itself is divided into these heads ; viz. 

What the sacrifice ought to be, 

Of the continual fire, - 

Of the manner of the burnt offerings, - 

■ of the peace offerings, 

of the sacrifices according to their 

several kinds ; viz. 

For sin committed through ignorance of the law, 

For sin committed through ignorance of the fact, 

For sin committed wittingly, yet not through im- 
piety, - - - - - 

The special law of sacrifices for sin 



Exod. 


Levitic. 


Numb. 


Deut. 


chap. 


chap. 


chap. 


chap. 


20. 


17. 





12. 


25,26,27. 








35. 


— 


— 


— 


30. 








— 


27. 
30. 
25. 


— 


— 


— 











25, 26. 


— 


— 


— 


28. 


— 


18. 3. 8. 


— 


— 





3. 18. 


— 


- 


19. 10. 


-{ 


18.12.17 
31. 


— 


— 


6. 


"~ 





22. 





15. 17. 


— 


6. 

6, 7. 
3. 7. 


— 


— 


- 


- 


- 





4. 


5. 





— 


5. 7. 


— 


— ' 





6. 


5. 





— 


6, 7. 


— 


— 



On the Book of Deuteronomy. 



591 



Of things belonging to the sacrifices, 

Of the shew bread, - 

Of the lamps, - - - - 

Of the sweet incense, - 

Of the use of ordinary oblations, whereof there 

were several kinds observed by the priests ; 
Of the consecration of the high priests and other 

priests, ------ 

Of the consecrations and office of the Levites, - 

Of the dwellings of the Levites, 

Of the anointing the altar, and all the instruments 

of the tabernacle, - 
Of the continual daily sacrifices, - - _ 
Of the continual sabbath-days' sacrifice, 
Of the solemn sacrifice for feast-days, which were 

diverse, and had peculiar rites, distinguished 

into these ; viz. 
Of trumpets, _ - - - - 

Of kalends or beginning of months, - 
Of the three most solemn feasts in general, 

Of the feast of passover, - - --! 

Of the feast of pentecost, - - 

Of the feast of tabernacles, - - - 

Of the feast of blowing the trumpets, 

Of the feast of expiation, - 

Of the first fruits, - - - 

Of tithes, - - 

Of fruits growing and not eaten of, 

Of the first-born, - - - - 

Of the sabbatical year, - 

Of the year of jubilee, - _ - 

Of vows in general, - - - 

What persons ought not to make vows, - 

What things cannot be vowed, - - 

Of redemption of vows, - 

Of the vows of the Nazarites, - 

Of the laws proper for the priests ; viz. 

Of pollutions, - 

Of the high priest's mourning, 

Of his marriage, - - - - 

Of the mourning of the ordinary priests, 

Of their marriage, - - 

Of their being forbid the use of wine, &c. 

Of sanctified meats, - 

Of the office of the Levites ; viz. 

Teaching, - 

Offering, - - - 

Other promiscuous ceremonial laws; viz. 

Of uncleanness in general, - 

Of uncleanness in meats ; viz. 

Of blood, ----- Gen. ix. 

Of fat, 

Of dead carcasses, - - 

Other meats and diverse living creatures, 

Of uncleanness in the issue of seed and blood, - 

In the dead bodies of men, 

In the leprosy, - 

Of circumcision, . - - Gen. xvii. 

Of the water of expiation, - 

Of the mourning of the Israelites, 

Of mixtures, - - - 

Of their garments and writing the law privately, 

Of young birds not to be taken with the dam, - 

Of their paddle staves, ----- 



Exod. 


Levitic. 


Numb. 


Deut. 


chap. 


chap. 


chap. 


chap. 


— 


2. 6, 7. 


15. 





— 


24. 


— 





27. 


24. 


8. 





30. 


— 


— 


— 


29, 30. 


6. 8. 






— 


— 


8. 


— 


— 


— 


35. 


— 


29, 30. 











29. 


— 


28. 


— 






28. 




— 


— 


10. 

28. 





23. 34. 


23. 


16. 


12,13.25. 
34. 


| 23. 


9. 28. 


16. 


23, 24. 


23. 


28. 


16. 


23. 34. 


23. 


29. 


16. 


— 


23. 


29. 


— 


30. 


16. 13. 


29. 





22,23.34. 


2. 


15. 


26. 


— 


21. 
19. 


18. 


12.14.36. 


13.22.34. 





15. 


23. 


25. 


— 


— 


— 


25. 


— 


— 


— 


27. 


30. 
30. 


.13. 


_ 


27. 


23. 


z 


27. 


6. 


— 


- 


22. 
21. 


- 


- 


= { 


21. 
21. 
10. 
6. 17. 19. 
22. 


}*"* 


12.15.18. 











17.27.31. 


— 


— 


3, 4. 18. 


10. 


- 


15. 19. 


5. 


— 


23. 


7. 17. 19. 





12. 


. — 


3. 7. 





— 


22. 


17. 





14. 


— 


11. 20. 


— 


14. 


— 


15. 12. 


— 


23. 


— 


— 


19. 





— 


13, 14. 


5. 


24. 


— 


12. 


— 


— 


— 


— 


19. 





— 


19. 





14. 


— 


19. 





22. 


— 


— 


15. 


6. 11. 22, 

22 


- 


- 


- 


23. 



592 



Introduction to the Old Testament. 



The Third Class. 
The Political Law. 



N. B. The magistrate is the keeper of the pre- 
cepts of both Tables, and to have respect to hu- 
man society ; — therefore the political laws of the 
Israelites are referred to both the Tables, and are 
to be reduced to the several precepts of 

The Moral Law. 
Laws referred to the first Table, namely, 1st, to the 

1st and 2d Commandments ; viz. 
Of idolators and apostates, - 

Of abolishing idolatry, - 
Of diviners and false prophets, - 
Of covenants with other gods, - 

2d. To the third commandment ; viz. 
Of blasphemies, - 

3d. To the fourth commandment ; viz. 
Of breaking the sabbath, - 

Political laws referred to the second table : 
1st, To the fifth commandment ; viz. 

Of magistrates and their authority, 

Of the power of fathers, - 

2d. To the sixth commandment ; viz. 

Of capital punishments, - - - 

Of wilful murder, - 

Of manslaughter unwittingly committed, and of 

the cities of refuge, - - - - 

Of heinous injury, - 

Of punishments not capital, - 
Of the law of war, - 

Sd. To the seventh commandment ; viz. 
Of unlawful marriages, - 

Of fornication, - 

Of whoredom, - 

Of adultery and jealousy, - - - 

Of copulation against nature, - 

Of divorcements, - 

Other matrimonial laws, - 

4th. To the eighth commandment ; viz. 

Of the punishment of thefts, 

Of sacrilege, - 

Of not injuring strangers, 

Of not defrauding hirelings, 

Of just weights, - 

Of removing the land-mark, 

Of lost goods, - 

Of stray cattle, ... 

Of corrupted judgments, 

Of fire breaking out by chance, 

Of man-stealing, - 

Of the fugitive servant, 

Of gathering fruits, 

Of contracts; viz. 

Borrowing, - 

Of the pledge, 

Of usury, 

Of selling,. 



Joshua vii. 



Exod. 
chap. 



22. 
23, 24. 

22. 
23. 34. 



18. 30. 
21. 



22. 
22, 23. 



22. 

22, 23. 

23. 

22. 



22. 
21, 



Levitic. 
chap. 



Numb, 
chap. 



20. 
19, 20. 



18. 20. 
19. 
21. 

19, 20. 
18. 20. 



25. 
25. 



35. 

35. 



Deut. 
cbap. 



13. 17 

7. 12. 

18. 

7. 



16, 17. 
23. 
21. 

21. 24. 

19. 

19.21,22. 

25. 

25. 

20. 23. 

7. 22. 
23. 
22. 



24i 
21,22.5 
25. 



10. 

24. 14,15. 

25. 

19. 

22. 
16. 24. 

24. 

23. 

23, 24. 



15. 
24. 
23. 
15. 



Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 



593 



Of the thing lent, - 

Of a thing committed to be kept, 

Of heirs, - 

5th. To the ninth commandment ; viz. 
Of witnesses, __-."-'- 

The establishing the political law, 

The establishing the divine law in general, 

From the dignity of the lawgiver, 
From the excellency of the laws, - 
From the promises, - 

From the threatenings, - 



Exod. 


Levitic. 


Numb. 


Deut. 


chap. 


chap. 


chap. 


chap. 


22. 


— 


- 


- 


22. 


= { 


26,27.33. 
36. 


} 7, 


— 


5. 


- 


17. 19. 

4. 

6. 11. 29. 






= { 


— 


— 


30, 31. 


- 


19,20.22. 


,,{ 


5, 6, 7, 8. 
10.26,27 


— 







4. 26. 


15.19.23, 
24. 


Tl8. 26. 


-{ 

r 


4, 5, 6, 7. 
10,11,12. 
4. 7. 11. 


23. 


26. 


-{ 


27,28,29, 
30. 



CHAP. II. 

AUTHORSHIP AND DATE OF THE PENTATEUCH. 

The authorship of the Pentateuch has given rise to much discussion 
since the middle of the eighteenth century. Nor has the argument- 
ation yet ceased. It still continues, and is likely to do so in 
Germany, till some clear and common ground be gained by the dis- 
putants on both sides. As to the history of the question, our space 
will not allow of its being given. A summary of the leading argu- 
ments advanced by different writers, and an indication of their value, 
is all that can be presented. 

"What is called the supplement-hypothesis is now the most approved 
one in Germany respecting the Pentateuch. According to it, an 
ancient document forms the essential basis of the work, which received 
very considerable insertions and supplements. The Pentateuch arose 
out of the primitive or older document by means of a supplementary 
one. In consequence of this twofold material of which the work 
consists, critics have attempted to trace the groundwork document 
and the supplementary matter, distinguishing throughout the one 
from the other. 

The two principal documents are usually called the Elohim and 
Jehovah documents. The former is closely connected in its parts, and 
forms a whole, while the latter is thought to be complementary, sup- 
plying details at the points where the former is abrupt and defective. 
They were subsequently combined by the hands of an editor so 
skilfully as to render their separation very difficult, indeed almost 
impossible in some instances. But we shall allude to this fact again. 
The hypothesis of two primary documents is supported by the 
following phenomena. 

VOL. II. Q Q 



594 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

(a.) The use of the different names of Deity, Elohim and Jehovah, 
in Genesis was early noticed. Some of the fathers, as Tertullian, 
Augustine, and Chrysostom, observed it in the commencing chapters 
of Genesis. This circumstance led to the idea of original documents 
having been employed in the composition. Taking Exod. vi. 2, 3., 
in connection with the phenomenon of Jehovah and Elohim running 
respectively through different sections, it was inferred that the writer 
of the old document which lies at the basis of the work, or of the 
first legislation as Stahelin calls it, avoided the use of the name 
Jehovah till the revelation of it in the sixth chapter of Exodus ; but 
that from Exod. vi. 2. and onward he constantly adopted it along with 
Elohim as a mere appellative; whereas in the sections proceeding 
from the supplementer — the author of the second legislation, as he has 
been termed — which are inserted among the materials of the primary 
document, both names are used promiscuously. Thus the employ- 
ment of different appellations of Deity is the first and chief argu- 
ment on behalf of the document- or supplement-hypothesis. The 
peculiar mode in which they occur suggests and confirms the supposi- 
tion. In separating, or endeavouring to separate, the two original 
documents of the Pentateuch, it is apparent from the nature of the 
case that the subject does not admit of very definite determinations. 
In regard to details we must expect that scarcely two critics would 
agree in all things. It is enough that they hold the same general 
outline. 

On the other hand, the advocates of the unity of the book, 
Ranke 1 , Drechsler 2 , Hengstenberg 3 , Welte 4 , Kurtz 5 , Keil 6 , &c, 
maintain that the use of the two names of Deity is not owing to two 
different writings incorporated into the books, but entirely to the dif- 
ferent significations of the names. Each is every where adapted to the 
sense of the passages in which the one writer has purposely inserted 
one or other. He chose different terms according as each waa 
adapted to the character of the accompanying contents. It is possible 
that this may be a correct explanation of the distinctive usage before 
us. Yet it is admitted even by Turner, who adopts the view in the 
main, that Hengstenberg and Drechsler carry the application of the 
principle too far. " They sometimes make the sacred writer scru- 
pulously and minutely particular in the choice of the terms, at the 
expense of simplicity and nature." 7 We believe that too much design 
is attributed to the author by those who support the opinion. The 
use of the names is not probably accounted for by the explanation 
furnished. The hypothesis of original documents in which they were 
distinctively used commends itself as more likely to be true, espe- 
cially as there are internal phenomena coinciding with this external 

1 Untersuchungen ueber den Pentateuch, 2 vols. 1834, 1840. 

2 Die Einheit und Aechtheit der Genesis, 1838. 

3 Die Authentic des Pentateucb.es, 2 vols. 1836. 

4 Nachmosaisches im Pentateucbe beleuchtet, 1841. 

5 Beitrage zur Vertheidigung und Begriindung der Einheit des Pentateuch as, 1844 
Die Einheit der Genesis, 1846. 

8 Einleitung in die Kanonischen Schriften des alten Tcstamentes, 1853. 
7 Companion to the book of Genesis, p. 42. 






Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 595 

characteristic. Indeed, though the external distinction ceases after 
Exod. vi., the older document having then also the name Jehovah, 
the two sources can still be traced. Those who have given most 
attention to their individual contents are Stahelin l , De "Wette 2 , 
Tuch 3 , and Knobel. 4 More recently Hupfeld 5 has gone deeper 
into the subject as far as Genesis is concerned, and brought forth 
somewhat different results from his predecessors. He has de- 
termined more exactly the nature and extent of the Elohim docu- 
ment, discovered that pieces previously attributed to it bear a later 
impress, and has vindicated for the Jehovistic document a connected 
and complete character. Three documents are supposed by him to 
have been put together by the final editor, viz. the older Elohim 
one, the younger Elohim one, and the Jehovistic. But his researches 
embrace no more than Genesis. In discriminating the two documents 
critics have generally combined the following phenomena with the 
distinctive appellations of Deity. 

1. Discrepancies, and different accounts of the same occurrences. 

Under discrepancies are these particulars. The first chapter of 
Genesis compared with ii. 4. and following verses. Here are two 
different accounts of creation. The first belongs to the Elohim 
document, the second to the Jehovah one. According to the latter, 
the earth when created had no grass nor plants, " for the Lord God 
had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to 
till the ground. But there went up a mist from the earth, and 
watered the whole face of the ground." The animals were created 
after man, and man gave them their names. Afterwards the woman 
was created. In the first narrative male and female are brought into 
being at the same time. These discrepancies do not probably amount 
to actual contradictions, for several attempts more or less successful 
have been made to remove such particulars as are absolutely irre- 
concilable ; but they evince at the least very considerable deviations 
in the second narrative from the first. Kurtz has failed to explain 
and reconcile the two in a satisfactory manner. 

Genesis xv. 18. ; Exod. xxiii. 31.; Deut. xi. 24.; and Numb, xxxiv. 
1 — 12. In the first three passages the Euphrates is given as the 
boundary of the land to be possessed by Israel on one side, and the 
Nile on the other ; while according to the latter, and in geographical 
exactness, it was not so extensive. In answer to this, it has been said 
by Hengstenberg, Havernick, and Keil, that the former, as containing 
prophetic promises, should be taken in a rhetorical sense, describing 
the central point of the proper country as situated between the two 
rivers, which are large and well known boundaries used indefinitely. 
The reply is satisfactory on the whole. 

Gen. xxv. 27 — 34. and Gen. xxvii. 1 — 40. According to the 
former Esau sells his birthright to Jacob ; but in the latter Jacob 
•obtains the paternal blessing belonging of right to the first-born and 

n Kritische TTntersuchungen ueber d. Genesis, 1830, and, ueber d. Pentat. d. Biicher 
Jos. Eicht. Sam. und der Kge, 1843. 

2 Einleitung. 3 Kommentar ueber die Genesis, 1838. 

4 Die Genesis erklart, 1852. 5 Die Quellen der Genesis, 1853. 

QQ 2 



596 Introduction to the Old Testament 

intended for him, by selfishly deceiving his brother. The latter 
section belongs to the Elohistic writer; the former, according to 
Knobel, contains a mixture of Elohistic and Jehovistic elements 
which cannot now be separated. In answer to the argument founded 
on these discrepancies it has been remarked by Keil, that if Jacob, 
according to the 27th chapter, saw that he was in danger of losing 
what belonged to him both by divine right and human right also, 
after xxv. 33., owing to the injudicious partiality of Isaac for Esau, 
and so procured by lying and deception the privileges of the first- 
born ; these particulars form no contradiction to the fact that on a 
former occasion Esau had sold his birth-right for a mess of pottage. 
There is certainly nothing irreconcilable in the two narratives. So 
far the answer is valid. But the fact that there are two such accounts 
of one and the same transaction presenting considerable diversities, to 
say the least, favours the assumption that they were derived from 
different sources, and so incorporated into one book. 

Gen. xxvii. 46 — xxviii. 9., where Jacob is sent to Mesopotamia to 
procure for himself a wife; and Gen. xxvii. 41 — 45., where he is 
obliged to flee thither to avoid Esau's wrath. Keil replies to this 
satisfactorily, that the one motive does not exclude the other. The 
threatening of Esau to kill his brother Jacob is consistent with the 
wish of Rebecca that the latter should select a wife from among his 
relations. 

In Gen. xxx. 24., there is another etymology of the name Joseph 
than that in the Elohistic 23rd verse. According to the 23rd verse, 
when Rachel bare a son she said, " God hath taken away my re- 
proach," i. e. *]|?V = P)DN\ from f]DN, to reproach. This is the older or Elo- 
histic view. But in the 24th verse we read, " she called his name 
Joseph, and said, The Lord shall add to me another son," i. e. ?)pV, from 
^P*, to add. This is the Jehovistic derivation. The reply to this is, 
that the fundamental or Elohim-document does not give an ety- 
mology but merely a slight allusion to the name. So Keil says. But 
it appears to us insufficient. Both involve etymologies. This is con- 
firmed by the circumstance that there are double explanations of 
Issachar and Zebulon in the same section, xxx. 1 — 24. 

In Gen. xxx. 25 — 43., the narrative gives a different account of 
the manner in which Jacob obtained his riches from that contained in 
Gen. xxxi. 4 — 48. In the 30th chapter the means which Jacob used 
to multiply his property are detailed; whereas in the 31st chapter he 
represents to his wives and Laban their father, that the divine bless- 
ing had made him rich. Here again the answer is easy and satisfac- 
tory, viz. that his not mentioning the means he had taken, but simply 
the divine blessing which accompanied him, is no argument against 
those means having been employed. 

In Gen. xxxii. 3., the abode of Esau in Edom contradicts the 
account in xxxvi. 6. &c, that he did not go thither till after the 
arrival of Jacob. According to the former, Esau dwelt in Edom as 
Jacob was returning from Laban's house ; whereas, according to the 
latter, Esau did not go to Edom to dwell there before Jacob's return 
from Mesopotamia. The former account is the Jehovistic, the latter 



Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 597 

the Eloliistic one. The discrepancy is that his settlement in Mount 
Seir or Edom is placed earlier by the one than by the other. To 
this Keil replies, that the summary account given in xxxvi. 6 — 8. 
does not state that Esau removed to Seir for the first time after 
Jacob's return from Mesopotamia and Isaac's death; while in xxxii. 4. 
&c., neither the time nor reason of Esau's withdrawal from Canaan to 
Edom is given. This is correct, and shows that there is no contra- 
diction between the accounts. It is possible that Esau may have 
sojourned in Mount Seir more than once. Whether it is probable 
or not, must be judged on other grounds. There is no reason how- 
ever for introducing difficulties into the text where they do not 
positively and plainly lie. The discrepancy assumed is therefore of 
no force. 

Gen. xxxii. 22 — 32. presents another account of the alteration of 
Jacob's name than that in xxxv. 10. In the former Jacob receives 
the name Israel because he strove with God and prevailed ; while in 
the latter, he received the same name when he came out of Padan- 
aram at Bethel. The former is a Jehovistic place ; the latter an 
Elohistic one. It is to be observed, however, that no explanation of 
the appellation Israel is given in xxxv. 10. Here there is no diffi- 
culty or discrepancy. In the 35th chapter we have a solemn con- 
firmation of the name already given. 

According to Gen. xxvi. 34., Esau took two wives, Judith the 
daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon 
the Hittite, to whom he added, according to xxviii. 9., Mahalath the 
daughter of Ishmael, the sister of Nebajoth ; but in xxxvi. 2. &c, the 
three wives of Esau are called Aholibamah the daughter of Anah 
the daughter (grand- daughter) of Zibeon the Hivite, Bashemath the 
daughter of Ishmael and sister of Nebajoth, and Adah the daughter 
of Elon the Hittite. In these two passages it will be observed, that 
the names of Esau's wives are different. Hence some add them to- 
gether and make six persons. But the most approved solution is that 
of Hengstenberg, viz., that each of them appears under two names, as 
it was usual in the East to change the name on important occasions. 
This view is sanctioned by Ranke and Keil. According to it, when 
Anah or Beeri in xxvi. 34., is called a Hittite, and in xxxvi. 2. a 
Hivite, the discrepancy is removed by assuming that the term Hittite, 
though it originally designated a single Canaanitish tribe, was em- 
ployed in a wider sense to denote the whole race, equivalent to 
Canaanite. Various other hypotheses have been proposed or adopted 
by other critics. We confess that none appears to us satisfactory. 
Knobel thinks that the Elohistic table of the Edomites does not 
appear in xxxvi. 2. in its original form. 

The narrative in xxxvii. 23 — 30. does not hang well together, es- 
pecially verse 28. with 25., and has therefore been elaborated by the 
Jehovist. In verse 25. the people to whom Joseph was sold are 
called Ishmaelites, but in verse 28. Midianites. This has been solved 
by saying that in 28. and 36. those called Midianites may be identical 
with such as are designated Ishmaelites in 25. 27. and xxxix. 1., 
because the latter term is used indefinitely as equivalent to Arabians. 

qq s 



598 Introduction to tne Old Testament 

We do not believe this to be a satisfactory explanation of the diver- 
sity, though the whole section appears Jehovistic. A twofold tradi- 
tion seems to have been worked up by the Jehovist ; for had the 
Midianites been identical with the Ishmaelites already mentioned, 
the article must have stood before the noun D*K>JK : in the 28th verse. 
Besides, the selling of Joseph to Potiphar is mentioned twice. 

There is a discrepancy between Gen. xxxix. 20. and xl. 4. on the 
one hand, and xxxix. 21 — 23. on the other. This discrepancy rests 
on the assumption that "inb.rrfl*3 "W, keeper of the prison (xxxix. 21.), 
is identical with Q'nssn ~tig 3 captain of the guard (xl. 4.); which is not 
a necessary inference. 

The disagreement of xlii. 27, 28., xliii. 21., with xlii. 35. ; of 
xliii. 3 — 13., xliv. 19—23., with xlii. 9—20. 30—34. points to two 
sources. According to xliii. 21. the sons of Jacob told the steward 
of Joseph's house that when they had come to the inn and opened 
their sacks, every man's money was found in the mouth of his sack; 
but according to xlii. 27, 28. 35. only one of them opened his sack 
and saw his money, at the inn ; the rest when they had arrived at 
home. In Judah's accounts of the reception he and his brethren met 
with from Joseph, who was then unknown to them, the circumstance is 
omitted in xlii. 9 — 20. 30 — 34. that the man (Joseph) declared them 
to be spies. Although there is not a minute agreement between 
xliii. 21. and xlii. 27. 35., yet we do not think that the divergence is 
of any moment, nor such as arises from different documents or tradi- 
tions. Judah's omission of a circumstance in repeating what had 
happened to him and his brethren is also immaterial. 

The passage in xlvi. 31 — xlvii. 6. appears not to agree with xlv. 
17 — 20. We cannot perceive any contradiction here. At the same 
time, however, there are many evidences of the section in which 
xlv. 17 — 20. stands being Elohistic; while xlvi. 29 — xlvii. 6. is 
from the Jehovist. 

In Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers, the following discrepancies 
have been noticed. 

In Exod. iii. 1. (compare iv. 18. and xviii. 1.) Jethro is called 
father-in-law of Moses, whereas in ii. 18. &c, we read that Reuel 
gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. On comparing Numb. x. 29. we 
find Moses's father-in-law is called Hobab, son of Raguel. Hence it 
has been inferred that his name was Hobab, and that he had the 
name Jethro in his official character as priest, from ^T)! 1 ., excellence. In 
Exod. ii. 18. father must in this manner mean grandfather ; and in 
xxi. his daughter must be grand-daughter. This is the answer given 
by Keil, and it is certainly preferable to that of Kanke and Baum- 
garten. No importance can be attached to the discrepancy, because 
the same person had often different names. 

In Exod. vi. 9. there is a deviation from iv. 31. This is quite 
nugatory, since v. 19 — 23. intervenes. 

Exod. xiii. 21, 22., and Numb. x. 11 — 28. In the former place it 
is said that the cloudy pillar began to lead the Israelites at Etham ; 
in the latter, that it appeared on the 20th day of the second month in 
the second year. There is however no contradiction, because it is 



Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 599 

not stated in the latter passage that it appeared there for the first 
time. 

Exod. ii. 22., iv. 20. &c., compared with xviii. 2 — 4. From the 
first two places it would appear that Moses's wife and children were 
with him in Egypt ; whereas from the last we learn that they were 
in Midian with Jethro. But the words in xviii. 2. " after he had 
sent her back," show that Zipporah and her children had been sent 
to Midian by Moses during his contest with Pharaoh. 

According to Lev. xxvii. 27., and Numb, xviii. 16., the firstlings 
of unclean beasts were to be redeemed with money; whereas, accord- 
ing to Exod. xiii. 13. and xxxiv. 20., they were to be redeemed with 
a lamb, and if not redeemed put to death. It is impossible to bring 
these passages into harmony otherwise than by supposing that a 
modification was afterwards introduced into the law, in favour of the 
priests, allowing them to buy the animal which was to have been 
killed as the law originally stood. 

Exod. xxi. 1 — 6., and Deut. xv. 12 — 18., compared with Lev. 
xxv. 39. &c. According to the former the Hebrew slave was to be 
set free in the seventh year of his service, but according to the latter 
in the jubilee year. 

There is no contradiction here. The law determined two periods 
in which the bondsman might become free, the seventh year, reckon- 
ing from the time he was sold, and also the fiftieth year, or year of 
jubilee. The bondsman was usually free after six years' service ; if, 
however, he had been sold a few years before the year of jubilee, he 
did not wait for the seventh year, but his freedom was restored in the 
jubilee year, and with it his land that had been sold. This is the 
solution of Michaelis x , which is adopted by Hengstenberg. 

Levit. xxiii., Numb, xxviii. xxix. do not coincide with Exod. xxiii. 
14 — 16., xxxiv. 18 — 23. ; Deut. xvi. 1 — 7. In the former passages, 
five festivals with holy convocations are mentioned ; in the latter 
only three festivals, with appearances before the Lord in the sanc- 
tuary. 

Keil 2 offers a long solution of the present difficulty, saying that 
there is no opposition provided the holy convocation, ®~p Kpi?P, be not 
identified incorrectly with pilgrimage to the sanctuary. Leviticus 
xxiii. gives the list of all the festival seasons at which holy convoca- 
tions were to take place, and all employments to cease, to which be- 
longed not merely the great yearly feasts, but all the festival seasons, 
with the sabbath at the head of them. From this it follows that 
B^p Nnp.p, a holy convocation, neither implies nor requires a pilgrimage 
to the sanctuary ; and also that the paragraph is not intended to give 
a universal, comprehensive law respecting the festivals. Numbers 
xxviii. and xxix. contain the list of the sacrifices which were to be 
brought on all days of the year (not merely on festival days) without 
determining anything as to the number of the great festivals. 
Exodus xxiii. and xxxiv. with Deut. xvi. give no complete feast- 
calendar, but treat of the feasts at which the Israelites were to appear 

1 Commentaries on the Laws of Moses, translated by Smith, vol. ii. p. 176. 

2 Einleitung, p. 89. 

QQ 4 



600 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

in the sanctuary before God with offerings of the first fruits of the 
land which had been given them by Jehovah, only incidentally and 
summarily. It arises out of this special object that in the last pas- 
sages the designation of the month in which the passover was to be 
kept is Chodesh Abib, ear s-of -corn month (Exod. xxiii. 15., xxxiv. 18.; 
Deut. xvi. 1.), because the first ripe ears of corn were to be offered 
at the passover ; while in Levit. xxiii. and Numb, xxviii., where all 
the sacred times and collective offerings of the whole year are 
enumerated, the separate months have to be specified according to 
their number first, second, third, &c, because the old Hebrews had 
no peculiar designations for them, with the exception of the first. 
Even in Exodus the ears-of-corn month stands in connection with the 
firstlings and first-born. Finally, it is not said in the text, Exod. xiii. 
and Deut. xvi., that only the seventh or last day of the great yearly 
festivals was to be kept as a sabbath ; but in Exod. xiii. 6. we read, 
" Seven days thou shalt eat unleavened bread, and in the seventh day 
shall be a feast to the Lord ; " while in the 3d verse the solemnisation 
of the first day is implied as being already known from Exod. xii. 1 5. 
&c, and in Deut. xvi. 8. the seventh day is named as a solemn assem- 
bly to the Lord, in which no work should be done. 

Elaborate as this solution is, it is unnatural, artificial, and unsatis- 
factory. The distinction made between a holy convocation and ap- 
pearing before the Lord in the sanctuary is not well-founded. At the 
same time there is no contradiction. The numbers are greater in the 
one set of passages than the other, which might very naturally arise 
from their being different in the different documents used in the com- 
position of the Pentateuch. But the one does not exclude the other. 
Besides, Chodesh Abib is not certainly the ears-of-corn month, as 
Hengstenberg argues and Keil after him ; the new moon of Abib, as it 
is rendered by Hitzig 1 , may be the true translation. And it is trifling 
to rest any thing on the fact that the word only is not inserted before 
mention of the seventh or last day in Exod. xiii. and Deut. xvi. 

Levit. xxiii. 18. &c, Numb, xxviii. 27. &c. In the former place, 
we read that with the bread of the first fruits the Israelites were to 
offer seven lambs of the first year, one young bullock, and two rams 
for a burnt-offering, one kid of the goats for a sin-offering, two lambs 
of the first year for a sacrifice of peace-offerings ; but in the latter, 
two young bullocks, one ram, seven lambs of the first year, and one 
kid of the goats to make an atonement. Here is certainly a discre- 
pancy. It is removed, however, by Bertheau 2 thus. The sacrifices 
mentioned in Leviticus are those belonging to the bread of first 
fruits ; in Numbers are given such as were added to the proper fes- 
tival sacrifices. This explanation is based on Rabbinical traditions, 
and appears to us wholly unnatural and unsuccessful. 

A discrepancy is said to exist between Exod. xxxviii. 25. &c. 
compared with xxx. 12. &c. and Numb. i. It is thought that the 
censuses of the Israelites referred to in these places do not agree. 
The census in Exodus is a mere numbering of the people with a view 

1 Osten tmd Pfingsten im Zweiten Decalog, p. 24. 
8 Die sieben Gruppen mos. Gesetze, p. 49. et seqq 



Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 601 

to the payment of a poll-tax; while that in Numbers has a very 
different object, the arrangement of the fighting men in their proper 
places according to the twelve tribes. The discrepancy here is there- 
fore nugatory. 

Between Numb. iv. 6. and Exod. xxv. 15. there is a diversity. 
According to the former the staves were to be put into the ark after 
it was covered over ; according to the latter the staves were to be in 
the rings of the ark and not taken from it. Keil thinks that the 
solution is found in a comparison of Exod. xxxvii. 5., where Bezaleel 
immediately after making the ark, put the staves into the rings for 
bearing it, with Exod. xl. 20., where Moses in erecting the tabernacle 
put the sticks (again) into the ark. Hence it is thought that in 
breaking up the tabernacle and packing the ark of the covenant for 
transport, the sticks or staves were taken out of the rings on account 
of the covering, and again put into them, as in Numb. iv. This 
solution rests on an arbitrary assumption, and is unsatisfactory. 

In Numb. iv. 3. 23. 30. 35. 47. and Numb. viii. 24. a contradiction 
is said to exist. In the former it is implied that the Levites entered 
on service at the age of thirty, and continued till they were fifty ; 
while in the latter they entered upon it at twenty-five years of age 
and continued till fifty. 

To this Abenesra, Lightfoot, Reland, Outram, and Hengstenberg 
reply, that the fourth chapter relates solely to the service of the Le- 
vites at the tabernacle of the congregation, to the carrying of it till 
God should choose a fixed place ; while in the eighth chapter the 
service of the Levites in the tabernacle of the congregation is men- 
tioned. In the former chapter it is said that the service of the Levites 
began with naqisri yb)2, taking down the covering vail (verse 5.), and 
carrying the different parts of the tabernacle ; but in the latter we 
find that they did their service in the tabernacle before Aaron and 
before his sons, i. e. they waited upon the priests while engaged in 
their sacred work. Thisi appears to us an unsatisfactory reply, be- 
cause in iv. 3. we read in the tabernacle of the congregation. Heng- 
stenberg 1 arbitrarily alters this into at the tabernacle of the congre- 
gation, because what follows relates to carrying the tabernacle and 
not to the other services of the Levites. But that is to limit a 
general expression at the commencement of a paragraph to the par- 
ticulars alone which are immediately specified, as if the latter made 
up all that is included in the general statement. The same general 
statement in iv. 3. and viii. 24. shows that both refer to the same 
service. If Hengstenberg's solution were satisfactory, Hartmann's 
question, why the author does not give the slightest intimation that 
such was his meaning, remains unanswered. Hence Winer 2 and 
Bahr 3 rightly object to it. 

Numb. x. 12. and xii. 16. are said not to agree. They are not 
contradictory, but certainly they do not hang well together. 

According to Numb. xi. 16. compared with verses 24 — 26. and 
xii. 4. the tabernacle of testimony was outside the camp, which is in 

1 Die Autbentie des Pentateuches, vol. ii. p. 393. 

2 Symbolik des mos. Cultus, vol. ii. p. 41. 

3 Realwb'rterbuch, u. s. w., vol. ii. p. 21. 



602 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

opposition to the regulations respecting the camp in the second and 
third chapters. 

To this Keil replies, that it does not follow at all from the former 
passages that the tabernacle of testimony was outside the camp, as a 
comparison of them with xii. 14, 15., and especially with Exod. 
xxxiii. 7., plainly proves. When the word Xtf.% he went out, is used 
in Numb. xi. 24. it implies that the tabernacle stood in a place apart 
but still within the camp, yet so that one had to go beyond the circle 
of the camp where the separate tribes lodged in order to stand before 
the tabernacle. 

This answer appears to us insufficient. The 26th verse of the 
11th chapter of Numbers and the 4th verse of the 12th naturally and 
plainly suggest the idea that the tabernacle was outside the camp. 
This agrees with Exod. xxxiii. 7., where Keil vainly denies that the 
tabernacle is spoken of, thinking that the language refers merely to 
the tent which Moses erected outside the camp before the tabernacle 
was made, and which is there designated ly'lft 7>p'tf, because the Lord 
met with him. We have reasons for supposing that chapter xxxiii. 
of Exodus, as well as chapters xi. and xii. of Numbers, are both 
Jehovistic, a fact contrary to the notion of Keil with regard to the 
tabernacle spoken of in both. He is right, however, in holding that 
there is no opposition between the account in Numb. x. 33. and the 
arrangement of the camp ; but that it is supplementary to it. 

Numb. xiii. 16. has been supposed to contain something opposite to 
Exod. xvii. 9., xxiv. 13., and Numb. xi. 28. 

According to the first passage, Oshea the son of Nun first received 
the name Joshua ; yet he has the latter appellation as early as in 
Exod. xvii. 9. and the other passages just quoted. Three solutions 
have been given, viz., by prolepsis or anticipation, for which analogies 
are adduced ; or Moses only renewed the name Joshua on an occasion 
when he was to verify his title to it afresh ; or in Num. xiii. 16. a 
statement is made of Avhat had taken place a considerable time before, 
either when Joshua entered the service of Moses, or before the en- 
gagement with the Amalekites. Hengstenberg justly objects to the 
first and second. 1 But the third is not less objectionable than they. 
It is unnatural and artificial to paraphrase with him, " These are the 
names of the men whom Moses sent to spy out the land ; and then or 
so (after he had at a former period borne the name Hoshea) he called 
him Joshua." 

Numb. xiv. 45. and Numb. xxi. 3. are cited as disagreeing. Ac- 
cording to the former passage the Amalekites and Canaanites smote 
the Israelites and drove them back as far as Hormah ; but according 
to the latter, the Israelites smote king Arad and the Canaanites, and 
called the place Horonah. 

The solution of this difficulty is, that the events happened at dif- 
ferent times, the former in the second year of the march through the 
wilderness, after they had been at Kadesh the first time ; the latter 
in the fortieth year of the journey, after they had left Kadesh the 
second time and were near Jordan. The place is called Hormah in 

1 Die Authentic des Pentateuches, vol. ii. p. 395. 



Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 603 

the former passage by prolepsis. We do not, however, approve of 
this recourse to prolepsis or anticipation. It is improbable that a 
writer should have used it much. 

In Numb. xxxi. 8. 16. a different view of Balaam is given from 
that in xxiv. 25. In the former section it is implied that he was 
slain in the slaughter of the Midianites ; whereas in the latter we 
read that he rose up and went and returned to his place, i.e., he had 
gone home. To this Hengstenberg replies, that the discrepancy rests 
on an improper identification of iopp? 2B»1 with io'pp - ?^ 2B»1 in 
xxiv. 25. The right translation of the text is, " Balaam rose up and 
went towards his place," i. e., he set out on the way home, as Balak 
also did, without implying that he actually returned thither. This 
solution appears to us too artificial and far-fetched to be satisfactory. 
The distinction made between the two Hebrew expressions is nuga- 
tory, and the plain meaning is that he returned home. 

2. It is also said that the Pentateuch exhibits different traditions 
respecting one and the same occurrence, and traces of the mixing up of 
two accounts of the same thing. The following are adduced as 
examples : — 

In Gen. xvii. is an account of the covenant of God with Abraham, 
and in xv. there is also a covenant, but without the introduction of 
the rite of circumcision and the promise of Isaac, which are contained 
in the 18th chapter. 

We can see no force or propriety in this argumentation. The 
15th chapter gives an account of the formation of the covenant with 
Abraham; the 17th refers to the incipient execution of it with a 
more definite explanation of the promise made in the former, an ex- 
planation which increases in clearness and fulness with the repetition 
of the promise in the 18th chapter. 

The taking away of Sarah at Gerar in Gen. xx. is similar to what 
happened in Egypt, as related in Gen. xii. 10 — 19., and to the case 
of Isaac and Rebeccah in Gen. xxvi. 1 — 11. Hence it has been 
assumed that one and the same fact lies at the basis of the three, 
which has been differently, moulded by tradition. 

Here it is replied that the same thing may have readily happened 
more than once in that rude age in different places, after intervals of 
time, especially as the similarities of the three occurrences are far 
surpassed by still greater dissimilarities, and each one bears all the 
marks of historic truth in itself, in certain circumstances peculiar to 
it, 1 Whether this be a satisfactory answer it is difficult to affirm. 
We believe that the case of Isaac and Rebecca cannot be held with 
any degree of probability as identical with the other two, or with 
either of them. It seems to us distinct and different. But in regard 
to the other two, it is possible that they may be different forms of 
one and the same event, because both happened to Sarah at no great 
interval of time. If so the 20th chapter contains the older or 
Elohistic form; the 12th the Jehovistic or younger. 

In Gen. xxi. 9 — 21. and xvi. 4 — 16. it is said that the same tradi- 
tion respecting Hagar and Ishmael is found in two different forms. 
1 See Kanke, Untersuchungen iiber den Pentateuch, vol. i. p. 209. 



604 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Here the similarity is much less than the difference. Minor circum- 
stances are analogous, but essential ones are unlike. And that the 
former should bear some resemblance to the latter is not improbable in 
the uniform and simple relations of nomad life. 

In the same manner the covenant of Abraham with Abimelech in 
Gen. xxi. 22 — 34. is identified with that which Isaac concludes with 
him Gen. xxvi. 26 — 33. Isaac called the well digged by his servants 
Sheba ; and Abraham digged a well likewise, on which account the 
place was called Beer-sheba. Here it is possible that two traditions 
of the same event may be found. But probability is against it. 
There are still two large fountains at Beersheba ; so that the two 
wells need not be identified as one. 

In Gen. xxviii. 18, 19. and xxxv. 14, 15. we have a twofold dedi- 
cation of Bethel. But this may arise from the renewed divine com- 
munication which was there made to Jacob ; the appellation of the 
place being merely a renewal of the name formerly given. 

In Exod. xii. 1 — 28. 43 — 51. the institution of the passover is 
recorded, and in xiii. 1, 2. the dedication of the first-born ; but in xiii. 
3 — 16. we have another law relating to the passover and first-born. 
This is easily disposed of. In Exod. xii. 1 — 28. we have the original 
rule respecting the object, meaning, and rite of the passover sacrifice 
and the seven days' eating of unleavened bread ; in 43 — 51 respecting 
guests who might be in the house at the time ; and in xiii. 1, 2. the 
prescription about the sanctification of the first-born ; but in xiii. 
3 — 16. Moses gives an account of these laws to the people. Hence 
the former is prefaced with, " The Lord spake unto Moses and 
Aaron ; " the latter, with, " And Moses said unto the people." 

Exod. xvi. treats of the giving of manna and quails ; Numb. xi. does 
the same. In answer to this it is said to be probable that Israel should 
soon murmur in the desert respecting the want of flesh (Exod. xvi.), 
and that afterwards, once again satiated with manna, they should 
long for flesh. When God sends them quails both times, the fact is 
explained by the locality in which they were, where the means of 
satisfying their appetites were so abundant as in Arabia Petraea. 
There are considerable differences in the accounts. In Numb. xi. 
quails are the main thing in the narrative, and are given not merely 
for one day, but an entire month ; while in Exodus the feeding with 
quails is subordinate to the gift of the manna. Such is the solution 
of Baumgarten ' and Ranke. 2 We confess, however, that it is not 
wholly satisfactory. It is difficult to determine whether two dif- 
ferent events took place ; or whether one and the same lies at the 
basis of both. 

In like manner, the Israelites rebelled twice against Moses on 
account of the want of water which was twice brought out of the 
rock. (Exod. xvii. 1. &c, and Numb. xx. 1. &c.) Here we cannot 
believe that one and the same event is twice narrated. The first 
murmuring was at Rephidim, which place was thence called Massa 
and Meribah, temptation and strife. (Exod. xvii. 1.) The second was 

1 Theologischer Commentar zum Pentateuch, vol. ii. p. 301. 

2 Untersuchungen, u. s. w., vol. ii. p. 175. 



Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 605 

in the wilderness of Zin, at Kadesh. (Numb. xx. 1.) The wilder- 
ness of Zin is very different from that of Sin. The first time, Moses 
brings water out of the rock at Horeb by smiting it; the second 
time, he brings water out of the stone with the rod which lay before 
Jehovah, on which occasion Moses and Aaron sinned. 

In Numb. xiv. 11 — 25. and 26 — 35. there is said to be a repetition 
of the same thing in two forms somewhat different, of which the one 
may belong to the Jehovist, the latter to the Elohist. To this 
Ranke 1 replies unsuccessfully. The possibility of a repetition still 
remains. 

In Numb. xvi. two different occurrences are said to be mixed up 
with one another ; for while the Elohim document spoke merely of 
Korah and his company of 250 men, who were for the most part 
Levites, with it the Jehovist or supplementer incorporated the re- 
bellion of the Reubenites, Dathan and Abiram, against the authority 
of Moses. Thus 2. 4 — 11. 16 — 23. 35. are supposed to belong to 
the Elohim document, 12 — 15. 25 — 34. to the Jehovist; while 13. 
14. 27. and 32. are interpolated. Such is the hypothesis of Stahelin. 2 
It is however too artificial and complicated to be admitted. The 
recourse to so many interpolations is a circumstance that militates 
strongly against its probability. It is rightly remarked by Keil 3 
that the third verse could not well be wanting in the Elohim docu- 
ment, because it forms the transition from the second to the fourth, 
and implies that, in the rebellion of Korah, people out of the other 
tribes must have taken part ; for they say to Moses and Aaron, " All 
the congregation are holy." Besides, xvii. 6 — 8. and xviii. 4. 5. 
22., parts of the Elohim document, presuppose the participation of 
other tribes in the rebellion, and confirm the account in xvi. 1. 2., 
that, besides Korah the Levite, the Reubenites, Dathan, Abiram, and 
On, were at the head of the rebellious party, as is also said in xxvi. 
9, 10. The reasons assigned for the violent separation of what 
coheres closely are feeble. That the 16th chapter shows the pecu- 
liai'ities both of the Jehovist and Elohist is a groundless assumption. 
And the alleged discrepancies are mere fictions ; for verse 19., where 
we read that Korah was at the tabernacle of the congregation, does 
not clash with the 27th, where he appeared at the door of his tent, 
since it is not said that the appearances were contemporaneous ; and 
that he was swallowed up like Dathan and Abiram (verse 32.) is not 
contradictory to 35. 39, 40., since, according to 35. and 39., only the 
250 men who formed the adherents of the rebels were consumed 
with fire, but in verse 40. the manner of their destruction is not 
stated. As little discrepancy isther between xvi. 35. and xxvi. 11., 
since in the 16th chapter there is not a syllable about the sons of 
Korah having taken part in the rebellion of their father. 

Such is the answer given by Keil to critics like Stahelin who 
assume a mixing up of two different events, viz. the rebellion of 
Dathan and Abiram with that of Korah and his party. There are 
perplexities in the narrative which have not yet been satisfactorily 

1 Untersuchungen, u. s. w., vol. ii. p. 193. 

2 Kritische Untersuchungen, p. 33. et seqq. 8 Einleitung, p. 94. 



606 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

explained. They are not cleared up by Keil. He disposes of them too 
summarily. It appears to us that there is some confusion in the ac- 
count. We should infer from xvi. 33., taken in connection with the 
27th verse, that the sons of Korah perished along with himself; 
whereas it is said in xxvi. 11. that they did not. Again, it is very 
uncertain whether Korah was swallowed up along with Dathan and 
Abirara. We should infer from xxvi. 10. that he was; but xvi. 35. 
seems to indicate the reverse. The 32d and 35th verses of xvi. 
it is difficult to reconcile. Why should Korah be swallowed up and 
so separated from his company of 250 men who were consumed with 
fret On the whole, there is such confusion in the account given 
in the sixteenth chapter that we cannot clearly dissipate it. Hence it 
is probable that the Jehovist mixed up the narrative of Dathan and 
Abiram with the Elohist account of Korah and his company, not in 
the method pointed out by Stahelin, but in some way which can 
hardly be explained now. 

(b.) In addition to the names Elohim and Jehovah, indicating the 
portions in Genesis which belong to the original document and the 
supplementary one, which names express different aspects of the 
divine consciousness belonging to the Israelites, it may be observed, 
that in the three middle books of the Pentateuch the materials are so 
apportioned as that all the legal parts, with a few exceptions, belong 
to the Elohist and most of the historical narratives to the Jehovist. 
Hence it is easy to see that all kinds of ideas and representations 
which occur in the Pentateuch cannot be found either in the one 
division or in the other. Many views are presented in the one which 
are wanting in the other, and vice versa. Each division has its charac- 
teristic peculiarities. Thus the Jehovistic sections in Genesis have 
what the Elohistic want, viz. the so-called Levitical views of Genesis, 
such as the appearances of Deity in a visible form, of the angel of 
Jehovah, the sacrifices offered, the altars built to Jehovah, invocation 
of his name, distinction of clean and unclean animals, the prophetic 
element in the primitive history, &c. In like manner the legal 
(Elohistic) sections in the middle books have many peculiar ideas 
not to be met with in the historical parts. This fact accordingly has 
been employed as a criterion for finding out a difference of author- 
ship or of written documents. 

Kurtz, Keil, and others deny that it can be legitimately employed 
as such. Resting, as they hold it to do, on a very insecure founda- 
tion, and arrived at for the most part by an artificial separation, aided 
by the hypothesis of manifest interpolations and elaborations of the 
Elohim document by the supplementer or Jehovist, they deny to it 
all weight, except it could be shown that the Elohist presents a 
different picture of primitive history and patriarchal life from what is 
contained in the supplementary Jehovistic sections belonging to that 
period and its relations ; or that the ideas peculiar to the supposed 
authors were mutually contradictory. Neither of these they suppose 
to have been yet proved. The Elohist does not treat of antiquity in 
a religious aspect, in respect to the manners and habits of life, more 
simply and artlessly than the Jehovist; nor are ideas presented by 
him contradictory to the ideas presented by the latter. 



Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 607 

It is impossible to go into details in such a question in the present 
work. And yet details lie at the basis of the different opinions en- 
tertained respecting this criterion. It must be conceded to Kurtz 
and others, who argue in favour of the unity of the books, that the 
circle of ideas contained in the so-called Jehovah document does not 
clash with that in the older one. There is also a good deal of .arti- 
ficiality and arbitrary assumption in regard to interpolations and the 
elaborations of the Elohim document proceeding or supposed to pro- 
ceed from the Jehovist. Yet there is an observable difference in the 
representations contained in the two divisions, which appears here 
and there more or less clearly. We do not know how to describe 
it better than by saying that the Elohist presents antiquity simple, 
artless, religious, exactly suited to the rude age to which its descrip- 
tions refer ; while the Jehovist confines himself mainly to historical 
circumstances, and brings out the more imposing aspects of the 
patriarchs. Stahelin, Tuch, and De W-ette have greatly exaggerated 
the differences of delineation, so as to make not only discrepancies 
but irreconcilable ones. This cannot be allowed. The descriptions 
are diverse, because both writers had different objects in view. 
And it is true, as Kurtz argues, that the same ideas appear in both 
divisions, though by no means so characteristically or numerously 
as are presented in .the one or the other alone. Our conclusion 
then is, that there are characteristic differences of delineation in the 
Elohist and Jehovist which may be discerned. These are not so 
great or so marked as has been contended, nor are they usually 
contradictory. They contain different aspects of things and persons, 
because the stand-point of the two writers was different. The ideas 
common to both are not so peculiar or characteristic as to neutralise 
the validity of this criterion. 

(c.) There is also some diversity in the nsus loquendi belonging to 
the different sections in question, which seems to point to different 
writers. There are breadth, circumstantiality, repetition, verbosity, 
belonging to the Elohim document especially in the first part of 
Genesis. The style is less polished. It bears the stamp of pri- 
mitive simplicity. There are also linguistic marks, different words, 
phrases, forms of expression, and constructions, which point to the 
divisions in question. 

In reply to this criterion Kurtz and Keil urge, that the manner 
attributed to the Elohim writer is found chiefly in the first part 
of Genesis, and there too in the sections proceeding from the 
Jehovist; that breadth, circumstantiality of narration, and repeti- 
tions, are among the peculiarities of ancient Shemitic historiography ; 
and that where they do appear more strongly, they arise from the 
nature and tendency of the narratives they belong to. It is also 
maintained, that a difference of expression is valid in showing a dif- 
ference of authorship only in case of the separate documents using 
the different words and forms of speech to denote the same thing. 
But this does not hold good, for, by close examination, reasons can 
be detected for employing different words to express the same thing, 
such as the sense and connection of passages. Besides, the peculiar 



608 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

words ascribed to the one writer are not unknown to the other ; or 
they occur merely in a few places, and cannot therefore be accounted 
characteristic. 

Whoever would pronounce an impartial judgment on the merits of 
these two views must diligently weigh all the particulars involved in 
each which go to make up the conclusion. The details are numerous, 
and demand a delicate perception of style and language. That there 
is some truth in the documentary view we cannot but allow. There 
is a perceptible difference in style, manner, and leading forms of 
expression between the sections distinguished by the Elohim and 
Jehovah-appellations of Deity. We do not believe that the argu- 
ments of Kurtz are sufficient to account for this diversity in other 
ways. They explain it to some extent, but not to that which is re- 
quired for the purpose. One thing however is certain, that the 
reasoning of such conservative critics should modify various minor 
statements made by Tuch and others. Enough remains, after all 
reasonable deduction from the particulars and proofs presented on 
behalf of a diversity of authorship on the ground of usus loquendi, to 
render that diversity probable. 

The book of Deuteronomy is distinguished from Exodus, Leviticus, 
and Numbers by its hortatory tendency. That it has some connection 
with these cannot be denied; for there are repeated references to 
things narrated in them. Yet it has been maintained by various 
writers, especially by De Wette, Von Lengerke, and Ewald, that it 
presents, both in its historical accounts and legislation, departures 
from the preceding books, additions to them, and even contradictions, 
which show that all cannot have had one authorship. 

As to the deviations concerning historical relations they have been 
explained on other grounds. Earlier occurrences are related, or rather 
touched upon by Moses, in a manner suited to the hortatory character 
of the book. Similar occurrences are not given in order of time, but 
considered much more in their internal unity and relationship. As 
to additions of a historical kind, it is surely not to be thought of that 
the earlier books are complete and full, leaving no details unnoticed. 
They pass over various particulars which are presented in Deutero- 
nomy. Even important historical notices they may and do omit. 
In regard to contradictions, these are matter of interpretation alone, 
and are more apparent than real. 

Such is the substance of the reply furnished by Ranke, Havernick, 
Koenig, Hengstenberg, Baumgarten, and Keil. These critics have 
commonly been successful in repelling the charge of contradictions. 
But they have not been so happy in explaining the deviations and addi- 
tions which Deuteronomy presents, compared with Exodus, Leviticus, 
and Numbers. Some of the passages, and not a few phenomena, are 
intractable in their hands. Hence the presumption at least remains, 
that there may have been diversity of authorship. Among the addi- 
tions to the legal sections are various new things of importance. 
Hence we cannot give our full consent to the conclusion at which 
Keil arrives, viz. since all the differences may be harmoniously re- 
solved, on an unprejudiced and careful examination, they testify for 



Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 609 

unity of composition, not against it, because but one and the same 
writer of the entire Pentateuch could, move so freely, whereas a later 
one would have carefully adhered to the earlier accounts and avoided 
all appearance of contradiction. 1 But surely it is possible that the 
Deuteronomy writer may have had peculiar sources whence he drew 
the more important additional materials, as Ewald 2 and Von Lengerke 3 
have supposed, though we entirely dissent from their ideas. 

In comparing Deuteronomy with the first four books of the Penta- 
teuch, it has been too generally assumed that it was composed after 
them. With this view the comparison has been conducted, as if de- 
viations and additions presupposed the earlier existence of Genesis, 
Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers ; and as if the writer of Deutero- 
nomy knew what was already written in the four books. All this we 
believe to be erroneous. It may be, that Deuteronomy was written 
first of all. There is nothing in the way of allusion or addition against 
it. And it is very probable, as will appear afterwards. 

The usus loquendi of Deuteronomy compared with that of the pre- 
ceding books is supposed to point to a difference of authorship. The 
style is changed throughout. The manner of representation is rhe- 
torical and verbose. There is an oratorical fulness of expression. 
Peculiar words and phrases occur, not found in the other books. 

In reply to this, it is alleged, that all such phenomena arise from 
the object of Deuteronomy. Its discourses are of a hortatory nature, and 
ought on that account to exhibit a certain fulness, as well as peculiar 
terms and phrases which would be unsuitable to the purpose of plain 
historical narration or to legislative enactments. Besides, many 
terms and modes of expression quoted as peculiar to Deuteronomy, 
are not so. So Havernick 4 , Koenig 5 , and Keil 6 argue. 

We cannot perceive the entire validity and success of the answer 
they give. The difference of style, tone, and peculiar expressions, 
has not been accounted for in a way to satisfy an impartial mind. It 
is true that the hortatory, didactic character of the book goes a con- 
siderable way in explaining the nature of the usus loquendi as compared 
with that of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers ; but it does not reach 
the whole length. Hence it is still probable that there may be a 
different authorship, as thus indicated. Some peculiar turns in the 
style have been thought by Von Bohlen and others to remind one of 
the prophets, especially of Jeremiah. A few words and phrases do 
occur in the book which appear in Jeremiah. But they are not of a 
nature or number to outweigh the far greater discrepancy existing 
between the usage of speech in both productions. We cannot believe 
with Von Bohlen, Vater, Gesenius, and Hartmann, that Deutero- 
nomy proceeded from Jeremiah ; the evidences of identity in author- 
ship being few and feeble indeed. Keil again has brought together 
a number of phenomena in the book to show that it entirely coincides 
with the antique usus loquendi of the earlier ones, not merely in the 
Jehovistic sections but also the Elohistic ones, and argues that it has 

1 Einleitung, p. 115. 2 Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. p. 168. 

3 Kenaan, p. ex. 4 Einleitung, i. 2. § 133. p. 521. et seqq. 

5 Alttestamentestamentliche Studien, ii. p. 12. et seqq. 

6 Einleit. § 30. p. 115. et seqq. 

VOL. II, R K 



610 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

so many peculiar words and phrases in common with them as to dis- 
own diversity of authorship. All that he adduces on this head is of 
little consequence, and by no means justifies the decided tone in 
which he speaks, a tone very like that of one who is resolved to 
maintain a foregone conclusion at all hazards. 1 

The historical stand-point of the Deuteronomy laws has been keenly 
debated. On the one hand, it has been maintained, that the laws 
contained in the book refer to later relations, presuppose a longer 
abode of the people in Canaan, and therefore, originated in the rela- 
tions of a later period, in the customs and abuses which arose in the 
course of time. This is a serious and grave statement, which demands 
proof. In favour of it are alleged such things as, laws alluding to the 
temple at Jerusalem, to the kingly and priestly offices, to a later judicial 
and military constitution, to the state of the Levites, according which 
they dwelt in the cities of the Israelites, without having the cities 
granted to them mentioned in Numb, xxxv., and had a share of the 
tithe-feasts, without the tithes allotted to them in Numb, xviii. 20. &c. 

But the two passages cited by De Wette, as containing references 
to the temple at Jerusalem, viz. xii. and xvi. 1 — 7., are aside from 
the mark. They contain precepts concerning that which the Israelites 
should do when they obtained possession of the promised land. The 
expression " the place which the Lord your God shall choose" 
alludes to a, future place, not one already chosen, like the temple at 
Jerusalem. The later character of the laws respecting royalty (xvii. 
14 — 20., xiii. 1 — 5., xviii. 9 — 22.), which De Wette conjectures to 
refer to Solomon, we are quite unable to perceive. Moses knew 
that when the people got into the land of Canaan they would be 
desirous of having kings like other nations ; and therefore he thinks 
it necessary to regulate such desire. In like manner the judicial and 
military constitution (xvi. 18 — 20., xvii. 8 — 13., xix. 17., xxi. 2 — 6. 
19., xxii. 18., xxv. 8 — 20.) involves a prudent forethought on the 
part of the great lawgiver for the future welfare of the people. He 
knew that they would require new arrangements after their entrance 
into the promised land — that they should need regular judges and 
magistrates, and be involved in wars with external people. A wise 
and far-seeing legislator who had become familiar with the temper 
and habits of a rude people like the Israelites, and with the disposi- 
tions of the neighbouring tribes, could have foreseen of himself much 
of what is implied in the passages indicated, and would doubtless 
have provided for it. But the legislator with whom we have to do 
was guided by a higher wisdom than his own ; and therefore there 
is nothing strange in the laws under consideration. The same remark 
will also account for the regulations concerning false prophets, inter- 
preters of dreams, sorcerers, &c. (xiii. 1 — 5., xviii. 9. &c.) The 
promise to send true prophets certainly presupposes a super- 
natural illumination on the part of Moses. Taught of God on this 
point, he is enabled definitely to predict the existence of a prophetic 
order. Divine revelation implies the reality of prophecy. As to the 
alleged fact of Deuteronomy presenting a homeless, destitute, but 
powerful priestly tribe, there is some plausibility in it. But it rests on 
1 Einleit. pp. 117, 11 S. 



Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 611 

false assumptions. Because the Levites were to receive cities to dwell 
in (Numb, xxxv.) they were not thereby excluded from dwelling 
among Israel, in the gates or cities, because the Levites were not 
the only possessors of the cities allotted to them. They had merely 
the necessary number of houses in them, the others being inhabited 
by the Israelites of different tribes. Besides, Moses foresaw that the 
Canaanites would not be expelled at once from the land. All the 
towns and provinces of it would come by degrees into the possession 
of the Israelites. If so, the Levites would be obliged for some time 
to live among their brethren, not in their own towns. Again, there 
is no real discrepancy between Deut. xviii. and Numb, xviii. The 
former does not contain a full statement of the revenues of the 
priests, but a mere supplement to the passages relating to this sub- 
ject in the earlier books. It is not an account of their only revenue. 
Although therefore, Deuteronomy is silent respecting the Levitical 
tithes, their previous existence is implied. Other diversities to 
which De Wette points as showing the later stand-point of Deutero- 
nomy, seem to us of little weight, such as the literal acceptation 
in vi. 8., xi. 18. of what is said tropically in Exod. xiii. 9., which, 
however, is a matter of doubtful interpretation ; the prohibition of 
the worship of sun and moon (iv. 19., xvii. 3.), yet according to 
Amos v. 26. &c. Saturn was worshipped in the wilderness; the 
punishment of stoning (xiii. 11., xvii. 5., xxii. 21 — 24., xxi. 21.), 
which in the Jehovistic sections (Exod. xxi. — xxiii.) appears merely 
in reference to beasts (xxi. 28 — 32.), and in the Elohistic only in re- 
lation to men (Lev. xx. 2. 27.), elsewhere only in the doubtful pieces, 
Lev. xxiv. 16. 23., Numb. xv. 35., showing in this that it was known 
to the other books ; the extension of the law respecting usury (xxiii. 
20.), contrary to Exod. xxii. 24. &c, which is merely one of those 
relaxations or modifications which Moses himself may have intro- 
duced into his code in the lapse of time ; the appellation of feast of 
tabernacles (xvi. 16.), which, however, agrees with Lev. xxiii. 34.; 
and the motive for keeping the sabbath assigned in v. 15., which 
does not exclude others. 1 

On the whole, we cannot see that there is force in the argument 
of the historical stand-point of Deuteronomy being later than that of 
the three preceding books. Admitting the fact of prophetic illumi- 
nation on the part of the lawgiver, and considering that the people 
were just about to enter the land of promise, there is a generality in 
the character of the laws recorded, which is adapted to the relations 
and habits of the people in common. 

As to the unity of the Pentateuch, one class of critics maintain its 
existence as manifested in two respects, its contents and language. 
They affirm that the object and plan of the work, agreeably to which 
the whole refers to the covenant made between Jehovah and his 
people through the instrumentality of Moses, so that every thing 
ante-Mosaic is merely a preparation for it, the remainder being but 
the development of that fact, prove that the Pentateuch in its pre- 
sent form proceeds from one author. This unity is original, as it 

1 SeeDe "Wette, Einleitung, pp. 213, 214.; and on the other side Eanke, Untersuchnngcn, 
vol. iL p. 347. et seqq. ; Havernick, i. 2. p. 521. et seqq. ; Keil, Einleit. 5 31. 

r k ° 



612 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

appears in the first disposition and entire execution of the work. 
There is a definite chronology running throughout all the five books, 
and uniting all their parts with one another. There are also a care- 
ful separation of the materials and an internal concatenation of all 
the individual portions, so that the earlier refer to the later and 
prepare the way for them ; while, on the other hand, the later refer 
back to the earlier, which they either develop or explain and sup- 
plement. Both phenomena, the exact chronology pervading all 
parts, and the laying out of the materials in such a manner as to pre- 
serve and show the internal connection of the separate sections, 
prove an original essential unity. 1 

Such is the summing up of Keil on behalf of Hengstenberg and 
his party. Nor is his general conclusion a mere arbitrary hypo- 
thesis, baseless and bare. It professes to be founded on a wide induc- 
tion of particulars. The chronological thread is minutely traced 
through passages in all the books ; the disposition of materials and 
carrying out of the plan on which they are distributed is pointed out 
in individual sections ; and numerous references to earlier portions are 
accumulated, among which are passages in the so-called Elohim or 
original document, to earlier sections assigned to the Jehovistic or 
supplementary document. Great industry and considerable ingenuity 
are displayed in the collection of these particulars to justify the 
general conclusion respecting the original unity of the Pentateuch. 
But we are unable to coincide in the view taken : the essential unity 
for which some contend does not present itself to our eyes, least of 
all the exact thread of chronology said to pervade the whole and 
every part of it. Close concatenation of all the separate portions can- 
not fairly be made out. And as to the references in later parts to 
earlier ones they prove nothing in favour of what they are adduced 
for. They are not valid evidences for original unity and one author- 
ship. They would agree equally well with the hypothesis of a final 
reviser or editor, who put together the different parts, digesting and 
arranging them as they now stand. We admit that express re- 
ferences in Elohistic sections to parts of Jehovistic ones is of weight 
in showing the unity contended for ; but it is not a conclusive proof 
unless it could be shown that such allusions are real not imaginary, 
that the Jehovist did not employ Elohistic materials on various 
occasions, and that none other except the Jehovist and Elohist had 
to do with the work in the way of elaboration and revision. Many 
of the retrospective references accumulated by Keil will not stand 
the test of criticism. They exist in imagination alone. Having 
such sentiments we are unable to agree with the opinion advanced. 
The essential, original unity of contents in their present form, can- 
not be held as probable. 

The same unity, it is said, also appears in the language of the 
Pentateuch. In all characteristic peculiarities it is alike, throughout 
the books and sections of the whole work. There is no twofold 
diction in the first four books. In Deuteronomy there is no usus 
loquendi different from that of the earlier books. The usus loquendi 
of all is the same. Such is the second general assertion of Keil, 
1 Keil's Einleit. p. 123 






Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 613 

based on numerous phenomena. But we are unable to perceive its 
correctness and force. There is much similarity in the language of 
the Pentateuch. A general analogy in all the books with regard to 
diction was to be expected. Yet there are also characteristic peculiari- 
ties, sufficient to show two documents at least imbedded in the first 
four books, and a much more rhetorical language in Deuteronomy 
than appears in the prior parts of the Pentateuch. It is true that 
various characteristic peculiarities of diction appear in common in the 
Elohistic and Jehovistic sections ; but surely the later may have 
imitated the earlier writer, or the written materials whence both 
drew belonged to the same times. We have seen that two docu- 
ments may be traced in the first four books, distinguished by their use 
of the appellations Elohim and Jehovah up to Exod. vi. ; that these 
documents present diversities of representation and diction ; that on 
account of their being put together in one, they occasion deviations, 
discrepancies, repetitions, which are sometimes perplexing to the 
critic ; and that the book of Deuteronomy is so different in language 
and manner from the other four as to show another authorship, 
though it does not fairly evince a late origin — one belonging to the 
period of the kings or the exile. 

The preceding observations are merely preparatory to a positive 
settlement of the authorship of the Pentateuch, to which we now 
proceed. Here we remark, 

1. That Moses was concerned in the writing of these books is shown 
both by internal testimony and by New Testament evidence. 

In Exod. xvii. 14. we read, " And the Lord said unto Moses, 
Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of 
Joshua ; for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from 
under heaven." Here Hengstenberg argues 1 , that there is an allusion 
in the article to a larger whole, with which this portion was to be 
incorporated, whether that whole was already begun or was to be 
composed in proper time. The words of the verse appear to us to 
refer to the prophecy of Amalek's utter overthrow, " Write this, " &c. 
And the book in which it was to be inserted was a monograph on 
the wars with the Amalekites. Hengstenberg's supposition is, that 
none would think of any other book than that " of the manifesta- 
tions of the Lord," a supposition with which we do not agree. 

Exod. xxiv. 3. 4. 7. : " And Moses came and told the people all the 
words of the Lord, and all the judgments : and all the people 
answered with one voice and said, All the words which the Lord hath 
said will we do. And Moses wrote all the words of the Lord, and 
rose up early in the morning," &c. &c. Here Havernick supposes 2 , 
that the book of the covenant was the Pentateuch as far as Moses could 
then have composed it. But Hengstenberg justly rejects this idea, 
maintaining that the contents of the book mentioned consisted of Exod. 
xx. 2 — 17. and xxi. — xxiii., containing the Tor ah or law in miniature. 

In Numb, xxxiii. 2. it is said, " Moses wrote their goings out ac- 
cording to their journeys, by the commandment of the Lord." He 
composed an itinerary of the Israelites in the wilderness. 

1 Die Authentie u. s. w,, vol. ii. p. 150. 2 Eiuleit. i. 2. p. 159. 



614 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

That Moses composed more than these isolated portions, that he 
wrote the entire law, is said to be implied in Deut. xvii. 18, 19., xxviii. 
58. 61., xxix. 19, 20. 26., xxx. 10. Special stress is laid upon Deut. 
xxxi. 9 — 1 1 ., where it is said that e ' Moses wrote this law and delivered 
it unto the priests, the sons of Levi, which bare the ark of the co- 
venant of the Lord, and unto all the elders of Israel. And Moses 
commanded them saying, At the end of every seven years, in the 
solemnity of the year of release, in the feast of tabernacles, when all 
Israel is come to appear before the Lord thy God, in the place which 
he shall choose, thou shalt read this law before all Israel in their 
hearing." Again, at the 24th verse of the same chapter, it is stated, 
that " when Moses had made an end of writing the words of this law 
in a book, until they were finished," he commanded the Levites to 
take the book of the law, and put it in the side of the ark of the co- 
venant that it might be for a witness. 

Hengstenberg and Havernick have reasoned at great length on 
Deut. xxxi. as an express testimony for the composition of the whole 
Pentateuch by Moses. Their remarks are acute and ingenious. But 
the justice or force of the conclusion at which they arrive cannot be 
admitted. The most natural opinion respecting chapter xxxi. of 
Deuteronomy is, that Moses is there said to have written that book up 
to the part where he who continued and completed it began. It is 
very difficult to determine where Moses left off, and the later writer 
commenced. If his portion ceased with chapter xxx., as Baum- 
garten supposes, the testimony of chapter xxxi. to the authorship 
of Moses proceeds from the supplementer of Deuteronomy. If it 
terminated with xxxi. 23., as Hengstenberg believes, or with the 
end of chapter xxxii., as Havernick thinks, or with the end of 
xxxiii. according to Abenesra, or with xxxiv. 4. according to the 
Talmud, we shall be obliged to resort to the unnatural hypothesis of 
Hengstenberg, viz., that on comparing verses 9. and 26. of chapter 
xxxi., two deliveries of the book of the law are mentioned. After 
being given to the priests and elders of the people, Moses took it 
back and wrote more in it. Surely this is a far-fetched assumption. 
It matters little however to the argument where the continuator 
began. The most obvious interpretation of the words in which 
Moses is declared to have written this law, and delivered it to the 
priests, is, that they refer to the book of Deuteronomy, or more cor- 
rectly all that part of Deuteronomy which reaches to the concluding 
appendix. We cannot think it probable that the whole Pentateuch 
is meant, because the book of the law in question was commanded to 
be read at the feast of tabernacles. But the Pentateuch was too 
large to be thus publicly read. Hengstenberg's removal of this diffi- 
culty is very lame when he says, it was left to the discretion of the 
spiritual overseers of the people to fix on those sections which were 
most proper to be read. How does he know this ? Besides, it is the 
exegetical tradition of the synagogue that the book of the law in 
xxxi. 9. &c. refers merely to Deuteronomy. 1 Here Keil tries to 
show that the tradition is of no weight, because it contradicts the pro- 
ceeding of Ezra, as related in the eighth chapter of the book of Ne- 
1 See Delitzsch, Die Genesis ausgelegt, Einleitung, p. 21. 



Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 615 

heiniah, where we have the first and only account of the law being 
read at the celebration of the feast of tabernacles. It is related that 
" on the second day were gathered together the chief of the fathers 
of all the people, the priests and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, 
even to understand the words of the law. And they found written 
in the law, which the Lord had commanded by Moses, that the chil- 
dren of Israel should dwell in booths, in the feast of the seventh 
month," &c. (Neh. viii. 13, 14.) What they learned on this occa- 
sion is not contained in Deuteronomy, but only in Lev. xxiii. 34 — 
43., where alone the feast of tabernacles is described. Hence it is 
argued that the hook of the law must have contained more than 
Deuteronomy, i. e. must have extended to the Pentateuch. 1 To this 
we reply, that it is very probable Ezra had then the entire Penta- 
teuch and read out of it. But since the people were so ignorant, and 
the feast of tabernacles had not been kept since the clays of Joshua 
(Neh. viii. 17.), can we reasonably suppose that Ezra would just 
confine himself to the original regulation respecting what was to be 
read ? On the first day he could hardly have read the whole Penta- 
teuch. He read in it, as it is expressly stated. He may have read 
then the book of Deuteronomy, and so fulfilled the original command. 
The second day's proceedings in regard to the law seem to us addi- 
tional and voluntary, arising out of the reformer's zeal for the wor- 
ship of God and the people's ignorance of their sacred rule. Hence 
the contradiction discovered by Keil is nugatory ; and the exegetical 
tradition holds good. If now Deuteronomy alone be referred to in 
chapter xxxi. in the expression this law, or this book of the law, it 
is clear that in xvii. 18, 19. the same meaning belongs to it. 

As to other passages quoted in favour of the expression book of the 
law constantly meaning the Pentateuch, we believe that most of 
them do not bear that sense. It is matter of doubtful disputation 
whether they do so or not. In Josh. i. 8., viii. 31. 34., xxiv. 26. 
2 Kings xiv. 6., xxii. 8. 11., it has been successfully shown by various 
critics, that the phrase does not signify the Pentateuch. But in 
Neh. viii. 1. 3. 18., it is probable that it has the meaning in question. 
2 Chron. xvii. 9. and xxxiv. 14, 15. are doubtful. There is nothing 
against the supposition that the expression received an extension of 
meaning, as, to the original contents of the law or book of the law, 
other writings of similar character were added, till the whole formed a 
connected volume. We consider, therefore, the argument founded on 
the constant usage of the entire Old Testament in favour of rninn "i£D 
denoting the Pentateuch, to be illogical. The other considerations 
stated by Hengstenberg, such as that all the parts of the Penta- 
teuch are intimately connected with one another, and therefore we 
cannot take Deuteronomy alone to be intended in chapter xxxi. ; that 
Deuteronomy presupposes the existence of the other books ; that the 
depositing of the book in the side of the ark of the covenant (Deut. 
xxxi. 24.) cannot possibly refer to any single parts of the divine 
records to the exclusion of the rest which were then extant ; must be 
dismissed with the single remark of their weakness. 

1 Einleitung, pp. 128, 129. 

K K 4 



616 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

It is admitted by Keil, that Deut. xxvii. 8. refers to Deuteronomy 
only or a part of it, because it is so limited by the context (verses 
3. and 1.). He makes a like concession in relation to Josh. viii. 32. 
But in viii. 31. 34., he thinks the law-book of Moses involves a testi- 
mony in favour of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. This 
however is nugatory, since in the three verses 31, 32. 34. the law of 
Moses means the same thing. There is no careful distinction be- 
tween them, as Keil assumes. The same writer, after Hengstenberg, 
also yields up Deut. L 5., from which Havernick had extracted an 
argument for Moses writing all the Pentateuch. But there are two 
other passages in the fifth book, which are urged by the advocates of 
this hypothesis, viz. Deut. xxviii. 58. 61., "If thou wilt not observe 

to do all the words of this law that are written in this book 

every plague which is not written in the book of the law ; " and xxx. 
10., " To keep his commandments and his statutes which are written 
in this book of the law." Such expressions, it is argued, are intelli- 
gible only on the supposition that the law-book existed already, as 
far as Deuteronomy. How could Moses speak of plagues, curses, 
commands, ordinances which are written in this book of the law, if 
there were yet no written records except the book of the covenant 
(Exod. xxiv.) and the record of the renewed Sinai tic covenant (Exod. 
xxxiv. 27.), both which do not contain a word about plagues and 
sicknesses ? 1 The answer here is easy. Moses did not necessarily 
adhere to the very words and forms of speech when he came to 
writing, which he had used in oral delivery. It is quite conceivable 
and natural to suppose that, when speaking to the people what is 
contained in Deut. xxviii. — xxx., he omitted book of the law, and 
used some such expressions, as " I set before you to-day." The 
passages quoted received their present form in writing. Unless, 
therefore Moses adhered to the same particulars and the same ex- 
pressions in writing which he had delivered orally, the argument is 
invalid. Surely it is likely that he spoke more or less than he 
wrote ; and in various cases altered the form of what he had uttered. 

What then is the conclusion we arrive at from a survey of the in- 
ternal evidence in regard to authorship furnished by the Pentateuch 
itself ? That the book of Deuteronomy, with the exception of its 
appendix or continuation, proceeded from the pen of Moses himself, 
we infer from Deut. xxxi. and xvii. 18. That he also wrote the laws 
which lie at the basis of the Sinaitic covenant may be seen from 
Exod. xxiv. 4 — 7., xxxiv. 27. Thus he may be regarded as the 
writer of the law which is the kernel of the five books, the most im- 
portant part of the entire work. But he wrote down other things 
besides laws. He composed a monograph respecting the destruction 
of Amalek (Exod. xvii. 14.), and also an itinerary of the Israelitish 
encampments in the desert (Numb, xxxiii. 2.). This is the sum of 
the evidence respecting its own authorship furnished by the Penta- 
teuch itself. 

2. There is evidence in the New Testament respecting the author- 
ship of the Pentateuch. The principal passages bearing on the point 

1 See Keil, p. 130. 






Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 617 

are Matt. xix. 7. ; Markxii. 19. ; John i. 45., v. 46, 47.; Luke xxiv. 
27. 44. ; Mark xii. 26. ; R,om. x. 5. Here the citations are either from 
Deuteronomy, or the book of Moses is mentioned (Mark xii. 26.), or 
the general expression is employed, Moses describeth, writeth (Rom. 
x. 5.), or the law of Moses is spoken of. None of them is decisive 
against the view already derived from the Pentateuch itself. The 
only two that may be thought to favour the hypothesis of the entire 
Pentateuch having been composed by Moses are Mark xii. 26. and 
Rom. x. 5., neither of which implies that Moses wrote the entire book. 
If he wrote the most important part of the contents, viz., the law 
properly so called, the centre and substance of the five books, round 
which the other parts are ranged and to which they are subordinate, 
the whole was popularly considered the work of his hands. A potiori 
nomenjit. The book of Moses, therefore, when applied to the Pen- 
tateuch, means no more than that of which he wrote the chief or 
essential part ; and when the expression Moses describeth or rather 
writes of is prefixed to a quotation from Leviticus, the name stands 
for the book to which it was thus popularly given. We fully allow 
that the testimony of Christ and his apostles would be decisive with 
us were it borne unequivocally and clearly on behalf of the Mosaic 
authorship of the whole Pentateuch. For though their mission into 
the world was not to teach the Jews criticism, and though true faith 
in Christ is not hasty to set limits to critical investigations, yet we 
remember that they were teachers of truth, and would not have 
allowed any error of importance or ignorant prejudice to have re- 
mained in the minds of the Jews. But Moses is represented by 
them merely as the originator and writer of the law, without ascrib- 
ing to him the authorship of the five books in their present con- 
dition. 

The testimony to the authorship of the Pentateuch furnished by 
Joshua is contained in i. 7, 8., viii. 31. 34., xxiii. 6., xxiv. 26., where 
the book of the law of Moses is mentioned. These expressions cer- 
tainly imply that Moses wrote the law ; but they do not assume that 
he wrote all the Pentateuch as it now exists. They agree with the 
internal evidence afforded by Deuteronomy that he wrote that part 
of the Pentateuch ; and with the other testimonies relative to the 
share he had in penning the decalogue. 

The book of Judges does not speak of the book of the law. Neither 
do the books of Samuel. 

In 1 Kings ii. 3. mention is made of a written law of Moses, but 
this decides nothing in relation to the entire Pentateuch, especially as 
the reference appeal's to be to Deut. xvii. 18. &c. In viii. 9. we 
read that there was nothing in the ark except the two tables of stone 
which Moses put there at Horeb. Havernick conjectures that " all 
the holy vessels " that were in the tabernacle (verse 4.) included the 
Law or Pentateuch, which is a far-fetched supposition. 1 The words 
of Solomon in viii. 53. " as thou spakest by the hand of Moses thy 
servant," &c. prove nothing to our purpose. They may refer as well 
to Deut. xiv. 2. as to Exod. xix. 5, 6. And in viii. 61. when the 

1 Einleit. i. 2. p. 581. 



618 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

king commands the people to walk in the statutes and keep the com- 
mandments of the Lord, the allusion is probably to Deuteronomy, 
which was written by Moses. In 2 Kings xi. 12. the testimony is 
given to Joash when he was crowned ; by which is meant a book in 
which the Mosaic precepts were contained. But there is no evidence 
that this was the present Pentateuch. 

In the books of Chronicles the following passages speak of the law 
of the Lord or the book of the law hy Moses : 1 Chron. xvi. 40., xxii. 
12. ; 2 Chron. xii. 1., xvii. 9., xxiii. 18., xxv. 4., xxxi. 3. 4. 21., xxxiii. 
8., xxxiv. 14. &c, xxxv. 26. These expressions may and probably do 
imply that the Pentateuch existed as a whole and was attributed to 
Moses because of his having at first written the substance of it. 
Prom the time at which the books of Chronicles were written, we 
have little hesitation in affirming that the Pentateuch is the most 
likely sense of the hook of the laic. Nor can we suppose that the ex- 
tended meaning of the expression was transferred by the compiler of 
the Chronicles from his own day to the time of David, to which the 
earliest reference belongs (1 Chron. xvi. 40.); for on other grounds 
we look upon it as a probable thing that the entire Pentateuch, as it 
now is, existed in the reign of David. This is favoured by 2 Chron. 
xxiii. 18. where the law of Moses is spoken of, and the allusion is to 
the book of Numbers ; as well as by 2 Chron. xxxi. 3. where there 
is a similar reference. 

In Ezra and Nehemiah we find repeated mention of the law of 
Moses, hook of Moses, law of God, book of the law of Moses, book of 
the law of the Lord, &c, as in Ezra iii. 2., vi. 18., vii. 6. 12. ; Neh. i. 7. 
&c, viii. 1. &c, ix. 3. &c, xiii. 1. These expressions allude to the 
Pentateuch as it now exists. 

In the prophetic books there is no evidence directly bearing on the 
Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch except Dan. ix. 11. 13., where 
the law of Moses is mentioned. 

The poetical literature of the Old Testament is also devoid of de- 
finite allusion to the point before us. 

We have thus seen that there is nothing in any of the post-Mosaic 
books which unequivocally testifies of the Mosaic composition of the 
entire Pentateuch. The book of the law or book ojL the law of Moses 
occurring in various parts of the historical writings may or may not 
mean the entire Pentateuch, according to the context and the view 
taken of the time when the Pentateuch appeared in its present state. 
But such phrases are quite consistent with the view that Moses wrote 
no more than the legal part and Deuteronomy. They leave untouched 
all investigations respecting the authorship of the Pentateuch in its 
present condition. 

Let us now endeavour to show, from internal evidence, that all the 
Pentateuch as we have it was not written by Moses. 
1. Traces appear in it of post-Mosaic writing. 

The formula unto this day implies a later writer, separated from the 
time of Moses and the events referred to in the context. We will 
not urge this expression as it occurs in Genesis, since there it may be 
appropriately used of things that took place centuries before the time 



Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 619 

of Moses ; neither shall we insist upon it where it appears in Deuter- 
onomy of occurrences long past or of things continuing for a consider- 
able length of time. But in Deut. iii. 14. we read, " Jair the son of 
Manasseh took all the country of Argob unto the coasts of Geshuri 
and Maachathi, and called them after his own name, Bashan-havoth- 
jair, unto this day.'''' Here the phrase unto this day implies a much 
greater distance of time after the fact related than the few months 
which Moses lived after the conquest. Hengstenberg l labours hard 
to explain this in conformity to his view of the Pentateuch, but with- 
out effect. If in the book of Genesis the same plwase is uniformly 
said of facts separated from the age of Moses by several centuries, the 
opinion is confirmed that several months cannot satisfy its demand in 
the present place. 

2. There are historical and archceological explanations which pre- 
suppose a later writer than Moses. Thus Gen. xii. 6. " And Abram 
passed through the land to the place Sichem, unto the plain of 
Moreh. And the Canaanite was then in the land ; " and Gen. xiii. 7. 
" And there was a strife between the herdmen of Abram's cattle and 
the herdmen of Lot's cattle : and the Canaanite and Perizzite dwelled 
then in the land." It appears to us that such language implies that 
the Canaanites had been expelled the land of Judea. 

Yet Graves and Hengstenberg boldly maintain the propriety of 
these words on the supposition of their Mosaic authorship. Let us hear 
the former: "Answer by Witsius. — It does not follow from this 
clause, that the Canaanites had been expelled when this clause was 
written : it may mean no more than that the Canaanites were even at 
that time in the land which God had promised to give to the seed of 
Abram. And this observation may have been intended to illustrate 
the faith of Abram, who did not hesitate to obey the command of 
God by sojourning in this strange land, though even then inhabited 
by a powerful nation, totally unconnected with, if not averse to, 
him ; a circumstance intimated by Abram's remonstrance to Lot, to 
avoid any enmity between them, ' because they were brethren ; ' as 
if he had said, It would be most extreme imprudence for us, who are 
brethren, who have no connection or friendship but with each other, 
to allow any dissensions to arise between us, surrounded as we are by 
strangers indifferent to, or even averse to us, who might rejoice at 
our quarrel, and take advantage of it to our common mischief: 'for 
the Canaanite and the Perizzite was ' even ' then in the land.' I 
may venture to add that another reason may be given why Moses 
noticed the circumstance of the Canaanite and Perizzite having been 
then in the land which Moses immediately after declares God had 
promised to the seed of Abraham. The Israelites might thus be 
most clearly satisfied no change had taken place in the purpose of 
God to give them this land, when they were reminded that at the 
very time this purpose had been declared, the very same nation 
possessed the country who still occupied it." 2 

This reasoning is weak. It rests very much on the introduction 

' Die Authentie, u. s. w. vol. ii. p. 325. 

2 Lectures on the four last Books of the Pentateuch, p. 442. fourth edit. 



620 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

of a word into the text, even, which the Hebrew does not sanction. 
It is evident that the writer entertained no such ideas as Graves, else 
he would have made then emphatic in some such way as the commen- 
tator does. 1 Equally objectionable is the translation given by De 
Sola of xiii. 7.,. " the Canaanite and the Perizzite were then already 
settled in the land." The word already is unwarrantably foisted into 
the English, having no representative in the original ; and an 
emphasis is laid upon settled, y&V, which does not properly belong to 
it. We reject both his translation and note. 2 Hengstenberg's expla- 
nation is no better. 

In Gen. xxiii. 2. Kirjath-arba (the same is Hebron), xxxv. 19. 
Ephrath (which is Bethlehem), the explanatory remarks inserted in 
parentheses seem to betray a later period when the first-mentioned 
appellations had gone out of use. That Kirjath-arba was the older 
name and Hebron the younger appears not only from Gen. xxiii. 2., 
but from Josh. xiv. 15., xv. 13., Judg. i. 10. Hengstenberg, how- 
ever, contends that the reverse is the fact ; that the name Kirjath- 
arba was first adopted in the period between Abraham and Moses, 
and afterwards supplanted by the original Hebron. But this cannot 
well be reconciled with Gen. xxiii. 2. and xxxv. 27. 3 We have also 
in Exod. xvi. 36. " Now an omer is the tenth part of an ephah," 
words that imply the disuse of the measure omer after the time of 
Moses. 

There is also an allusion to old documents in Numb. xxi. 14. 16. 
27. In the first passage the booh of the wars of the Lord is quoted. 
This, says Vater 4 , it is very difficult to imagine the existence of in 
the time of Moses when the wars of God's people, with a few excep- 
tions, had only begun a few months before. And it is wholly incon- 
ceivable that a book composed at that period could be quoted as a 
voucher for the geographical notices contained in the preceding 
verses. Hengstenberg replies, that the object of the citation is not to 
verify a geographical notice, but to represent the impression which 
the leadings of the Lord had made upon his people. He also supposes 
that a succession of wars of the Lord in a peculiar sense had already 
taken place which might be celebrated in the book of the wars of the 
Lord. 5 Admitting however the force of these remarks, which we do 
not, the probability of a written book in which the mighty acts of 
God towards Israel's enemies were sung, existing so early as now, 
before the Israelites had really begun to enter on possession of the 
promised land, and quoted by Moses, is very small. The other poetical 
pieces in 17th, 18th, and 27th verses add to the difficulty, since they 
are historico-geographical in their character. The citation in the 14th 
verse is of the same nature. 

3. The local position of the writer in Palestine is also assumed, as 

1 See Giles's Hebrew Eecords, p. 139. second edit. 

2 See Genesis, a new Translation with notes Critical and Explanatory, by De Sola, 
Lindenthal, and Raphall, p. 65. et seqq. 

3 See Winer's Eealwbrterbuch, vol. i. p. 474., note 1. 

1 Commentar ueber den Pentateuch, u. s. w. Theil, iii. p. 643. 
5 Authentic, u. 8. w., vol. ii. p. 225. 



Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 621 

in Gen. xii. 8., Exod. xxvi. 22. &c, where the phrases D*K>, ^&l, mean- 
ing westward, occur, which presuppose one residing in Canaan bounded 
by the Mediterranean sea to the west. The answer of Keil to this is 
nugatory, viz. that the geographical designations of the countries of 
the world then known may have been fixed for the Hebrew language 
as early as by the patriarchs. 1 

4. Such passages as the following are inconsistent with the mo- 
desty of Moses, on the supposition that he himself was the writer. 

" Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, 
in the sight of Pharaoh's servants, and in the sight of the people." 
(Exod. xi. 3.) 

" Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men which 
were upon the face of the earth." (Numb. xii. 3.) 

The latter passage in particular has perplexed such writers as 
Hengstenberg ; while some who advocate the Mosaic authorship of 
the Pentateuch, as Eichhorn and Bosenrnuller, look upon it as an 
interpolation. In like manner the following singular method of 
expression could scarcely have come from Moses speaking of himself 
and his brother : " These are that Aaron and Moses' to whom the 
Lord said, e Bring out the children of Israel from the land of Egypt 
according to their armies.' These are they which spake to Pharaoh 
king of Egypt, to bring out the children of Israel from Egypt : these 
are that Moses and Aaron." (Exod. vi. 26, 27.) 

5. Again in Numb. xv. 22. &c, and in xxviii. 6., Moses himself 
would hardly have written, " And if ye have erred, and not observed 
all these commandments which the Lord hath spoken unto Moses ; 
even all that the Lord hath cammanded you by the hand of Moses, 
from the day that the Lord commanded Moses, and henceforward 
among your generations ; then it shall be, &c." " It is a continual 
burnt-offering, which was ordained in mount Sinai for a sweet savour, 
a sacrifice made by fire unto the Lord." 2 The words are appropriate 
only as coming from one who lived after him. 

6. Later circumstances are presupposed, as in Lev. xviii. 28., 
" That the land spue not you out also when ye defile it, as it spued 
out the nations that were before you? language involving the idea that 
the Canaanites had been already expelled from their country. Keil 
endeavours in vain to neutralise this by appealing to the 24th verse, 
and assuming a prosopopoeia. 3 In Gen. xl. 15., + he words of Joseph, 
" for indeed I was stolen away out of the land of the Hebrews," pre- 
suppose the Hebrew occupation of the land. The ancient and usual 
appellation of it was, the land of Canaan, which the Elohist always 
uses. In Gen. xxxvi. 31. we read, ' And these are the kings that 
reigned in the land of Edom, before there reigned any king over the 
children of Israel," which imply the existence of kings in Israel. But 
probably this passage may be explained, with Hengstenberg 4 , con- 
sistently with the Mosaic authorship of Genesis. It may contain a 
reference to the preceding promises to the patriarchs of a kingdom 

1 Einleitung, p. 153. 8 See Von Lengerke, Kenaan, p. Ixxxviii. 

3 Einleitung, p. 154. 4 Authentie, u. s. w., vol. ii. pp. 202, 203. 



622 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

among their posterity, especially to xxxv. 11. Again, on comparing 
Exod. xvi. 35., " the children of Israel did eat manna forty years, 
until they came to a land inhabited ; they did eat manna, until they 
came unto the borders of the land of Canaan," with Josh. v. 11, 12., 
" and the manna ceased on the morrow after they had eaten of the 
old corn of the land ; neither had the children of Israel manna any 
more ; but they did eat of the fruit of the land of Canaan that year," 
it would appear that an allusion is here made to an event, the ceasing 
of the manna, which did not happen till after the death of Moses. 
Hence the relation of it could not have been written by Moses. 
Here some have recourse to the supposition of Exod. xvi. 35. being 
a gloss. So Le Clerc and Rosenmiiller believed. But Hengstenberg l 
thinks that the passage contains nothing which goes beyond the time of 
Moses, or which he could not have written, because Moses means only 
to state the time when the manna still continued, not to determine 
the exact point of time when it ceased. This is a mere assumption 
inconsistent with the expression in the context "to a land inhabited." 
There was no reasonable motive for stating in this part of the history 
the time when the manna still continued. On the other hand, the 
time of its cessation is appropriate. 

7. Again, names of places and countries which came into use after- 
wards, as the common appellations, are mentioned. 

We have already referred to Hebron as an instance. Laish first 
received the appellation Dan from the Danites immediately after 
Joshua's death (Josh. xix. 47. ; Judg. xviii. 290; y e t it is called Dan 
in Gen. xiv. 14., and Deut. xxxiv. 1. This difficulty has been felt 
so much, that Jahn, Eichhorn, Hengstenberg, and Havernick assume 
the existence of two places called Dan, notwithstanding the high im- 
probability arising from nearness of situation ; for both lay in the 
most northern part of Canaan. 

8. How different the language of Deuteronomy is from that of the 
other four books every critical scholar perceives; which is an evi- 
dence that the whole Pentateuch could not have been written by 
Moses. 

It has always been admitted that certain parts of the Pentateuch 
belonged to a later writer or writers than Moses, such as the account 
of his own death. Various phrases or verses here and there have also 
been attributed to Ezra or some other. Prideaux, for example, sup- 
poses the last chapter of Deuteronomy to have proceeded from Ezra, 
to whom he also attributes various interpolations, of which he ad- 
duces examples. 2 The entire question then resolves itself into the 
extent of Moses's authorship. Even Hengstenberg must allow that 
Moses did not write all. How much did he compose ? If a part be 
denied to him, it is surely open to criticism to refuse him other parts, 
provided the evidence be suitable and sufficient. It is arbitrary 
to assume that verses here and there proceeded from Ezra — such 

1 Authentic, u. s. w., vol. ii. p.~210. 

2 The Old and New Testament connected, part i. book v. vol. i. p. 342. et seqq. 
ed. 1719. 



Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 623 

verses as stand in the way of Mosaic authorship in the first four 
books. Hengstenberg is right in not resorting to that expedient, 
which looks like a mere subterfuge. But his attempt to claim all the 
four books for Moses, together with Deuteronomy, appears to us an 
unsuccessful one. He has done good service, in conjunction with 
Havernick, in showing the untenableness of many arguments urged 
by Hartmann, Von Lengerke, Stahelin, Vater, De Wette, and others ; 
since they have certainly gathered together and adduced numerous 
considerations which cannot stand the test of an enlightened and 
searching criticism. But in endeavouring to combat them all he has 
fallen into an extreme which can never be upheld. His remarks on 
Numb. xii. 3. are a fair specimen of his one-sided apologetic tone on 
behalf of the Mosaic authorship, as if Moses himself would have 
written, " now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men 
which were upon the face of the earth." 

How the writer of all in the present Pentateuch that was not 
composed by Moses himself, proceeded, is a question which can be 
answered very imperfectly at this distance of time. Assuming at 
present what will be discussed and adopted hereafter, that the time 
when the Pentateuch appeared as a whole was in the reign of the 
early kings, Ave believe that two easily recognised authors appear in 
the first four books, the Elohist and Jehovist, so called from the 
names they severally give to the Supreme Being. The one terms the 
Almighty Elohim ; the other, Jehovah or Jehovah Elohim. After 
the origin and import of Jehovah is described in the sixth chapter of 
Exodus, the Elohist also employs the name Jehovah, and so the 
external characteristic ceases. But though the outward mark disap- 
pears, there are internal characteristics which separate both. The 
manner, style, and phraseology differ. The Elohist employs a style 
simple and unpolished. He is distinguished by breadth, circumstan- 
tiality, repetitions, verbosity. He belonged to the priestly order, was 
familiar with primitive history, genealogical and ethnographical regis- 
ters, and the laws immediately affecting religion or religious worship. 
There is also a uniform and consistent plan in what he composed. 
His work is pervaded by unity of purpose. On the other hand, the 
Jehovist writes in a more compact, regular, connected manner, and 
though shorter, is clearer and smoother in style and diction. He 
evinces more reflectiveness and skill in composition ; and probably 
belonged to the prophetic order. He is also more anthropomorphic, 
representing the Deity in a mode consonant with the notions of pri- 
mitive men. The Elohist document forms the groundwork of the 
Pentateuch, and is evidently older than the Jehovist one. Whether 
the author of the latter had the other document before him, which 
he merely supplemented and interpolated, is not agreed. It has been 
usually supposed that his object was to make it more complete. Hup- 
feld, however, has questioned this assumption. His opinion is, that 
the one writing was made independently of the other. 1 And this is 
certainly more accordant with internal evidence. A plan can be dis- 

1 Die Quellen der Genesis, 1853. 



624 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

covered in the Jehovistic as well as the Elohistic document. It had 
an independent unity of its own. "We believe that the one writer had 
not the other's document before him; and that he did not write 
with a view towards it. The sources from which both drew were 
old documents, registers, and tradition. It is very difficult to deter- 
mine the time or times when the two respectively wrote. Nothing but 
conjecture has been advanced on the point. Thus Ewald and Von Len- 
gerke place the Elohist in the time of Solomon, the Jehovist under 
Hezekiah; Stahelin again, puts them in the time of the Judges and Saul 
respectively. Tuch thinks that the older lived in the time of Saul, the 
younger in that of Solomon. Killisch places the Elohist in David's 
time, De Wette in the time of the Kings. The last-named critic places 
the Jehovist after Jehoram and before Ezekiel. Into the internal 
grounds from which an opinion might perhaps be drawn as to the re- 
spective ages of these two writers we cannot now enter, especially as 
they are precarious. We are more inclined to the view of Delitzsch, 
that they lived not far from the time of Moses himself. In con- 
sequence of the numerous references to the Mosaic legislation as 
complete in the times of the Kings and even earlier, it appears to us 
that almost all the critics bring clown the Elohist and Jehovist too 
low. But Delitzsch thinks that the history of Israel began to be 
written immediately after it had reached a concluding point on the 
soil of the Holy Land. A man like Eleazar, son of Aaron the priest, 
wrote the great work beginning with Breshith Bara, into which he 
took the covenant roll. A second, like Joshua, or one of those elders 
on whom Moses's spirit rested, supplemented this work and incor- 
porated Deuteronomy with it. In some such way the Tor ah ori- 
ginated, certainly not without the use of many written memorials by 
both narrators. Each of the two was in his own manner the echo 
and copy of the great lawgiver, their teacher and type. 1 Such is 
the hypothesis of Delitzsch, which does not suffice for a solution of 
the entire problem. The persons he speaks of are not unlikely ; but 
we cannot think that the one merely supplemented the other's work, 
or that he even saw it. Probably the interval between the two 
was greater than that assumed. Neither was the Pentateuch com- 
pleted by the Jehovist, or so early as his day. After him, the sub- 
stance of it had appeared in writing ; but it existed in two pieces 
separately composed. Some one must have subsequently put them 
together, digesting and arranging them as they now are. The final 
editor, if we may use the word, lived some time after the Elohist and 
Jehovist. This will appear from an examination of the time when 
the Pentateuch as it now is was composed. The passage in 2 Kings 
xxii. 8. &c, which speaks of Hilkiah "finding the book of the law in 
the house of the Lord," has been already referred to. Notwithstand- 
ing the opinion of some that the hook of the law there means the 
present Pentateuch, we cannot think it reasonable or probable. And 
that Hilkiah and Shephaniah were the authors of it is not to be 
entertained for a moment. Hence this place, which might appear to 

1 Die Genesis ausgelegt Einleitung, pp. 27, 28. 



Author si lip and Date of the Pentateuch. 625 

some at first sight of importance in determining the date of the Pen- 
tateuch, is useless in regard to it. 

Hengstenberg and those who commonly agree with him, endeavour 
to discover the early date of the Mosaic books, or rather to cor- 
roborate the Mosaic origin of them which they have already assumed, 
by collecting allusions and references to them in the books of the Old 
Testament which are usually supposed to have been written after, 
from Joshua and Judges downwards. They also trace their existence 
in the national and ecclesiastical life of the nation, which could not 
have been as it was without an acquaintance with the Mosaic legisla- 
tion. The historical, prophetic, and poetical literature of the nation 
was based upon and moulded by it to a considerable extent. It is 
argued that the features which appear in the religious and social 
existence of the Israelites after their possession of the promised land 
would be an inexplicable anomaly without the antecedent legislative 
enactments and historical events embodied in the Pentateuch. 

No impartial critic can deny that there is force in this line of 
argument. If ably and skilfully conducted it is of signal benefit to 
the view which the school of Hengstenberg wishes to uphold. Let 
us see the substance of what is advanced on this head. 

Joshua is pervaded by such allusions. It presupposes the existence 
of the Mosaic legislation. This is commonly allowed at the present 
day. The book of Judges presupposes the same. Notwithstanding 
the disordered state in which the political and religious relations of 
the theocracy then were, the law of Moses formed the basis of the 
religious and civil life of the nation. 

Thus in the book of Judges, the address of the angel of the Lord, 
ii. 1. &c, is taken from various passages in the Pentateuch. Compare 
verse 2. with Exod. xxxiv. 12, 13., Deut. vii. 2. 5., Exod. xxiii. 21. ; 
verse 3. with Exod. xxiii. 33. ; verse 10. with Exod. i. 8. ; verse 15, 
with Lev. xxvi. 15 — 17., Deut. xxviii. 15. ; verse 17. with Exod. 
xxxiv. 15. and xxxii. 8. ; chap. iv. 15. with Exod. xiv. 24., whence 
the unusual word Dim. The address of the prophet in vi. 8. begins 
with the words of Exod. xx. 2., and repeats to Gideon in the 16th 
verse the promise made to Moses in Exod. iii. 12., whereupon Gideon 
excuses his boldness in the words of Abraham, Gen. xviii. 32. In 
xiii. 7. the angel promises a son to the wife of Manoah in words 
similar to those which the angel addressed to Hagar, Gen. xvi. 11., 
the narrator retaining the unusual form m?\ Compare also xix. 22. 
&c. with Gen. xix. 4. &c. In xx. 6. are various words from Gen. 
xxxiv. 7. and Deut. xxii. 21. In xxi. 17. the elders of the congrega- 
tion give a spiritual interpretation of Deut. xxv. 6. 

The ordinances of worship are generally conducted according to 
the law. Thus vows are regarded as inviolable, xi. 35., compared 
with Numb. xxx. 2. Fasting is the outward token of repentance, 
xx. 26., as prescribed in Lev. xvi. 29. Circumcision is looked upon 
as the prerogative of the Israelites, xiv. 5. ; and in agreement Avith 
Numb. vi. 2. &c. do we find Nazaritism, xiii. 5. &c. So too the 
blowing of a trumpet, iii. 27., vii. 18., coincides with Numb. x. 9. 
The law respecting clean and unclean meats is also observed, xiii. 4. 

VOL. II. S s 



626 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

14. Yearly festivals are kept in the sanctuary at Shiloh, xxi. 19., 
according to Exod. xxiii. 14, 15., xxxiv. 23., Deut. xvi. 16. &c. What 
is prescribed in Deut. xiii. 13. &c. we find executed in Judges xxi. 

11. The validity of the Mosaic law in a social relation during the 
period of the Judges may be seen from the Levirate law in Ruth iii. 

12. compared with Deut. xxv. 5. ; from the aversion of the pious to 
marriages with the uncircumcised, Judg. xiv. 3. ; from the obliga- 
tion of the law of inheritance, xi. 2. compared with Gen. xxi. 10. In 
a political view, the congregation is governed by the elders, as in 
the Pentateuch, and among the tribes Judah has the pre-eminence, 
i. 2., xx. 18. Compare Numb. ii. 3., x. 14., Gen. xlix. 8. &c. 
Gideon refuses to be king both for himself and his son, because God 
is king in Israel, Deut. xvii. 14., Exod. xix. 5, 6., Deut. xxxiii. 5. 
In the song of Deborah, Judg. v., passages in the Pentateuch are 
imitated and freely reproduced, as Deut. xxxiii. 2., Exod. xix. 16. 
&c, Gen. xlix. 

The books of Samuel show that the rule of theocratic life from Eli 
till David was the Mosaic law. Thus public worship is conducted 
in the tabernacle at Shiloh under Eli and Samuel (1 Sam. i. and iii.), 
and afterwards at Nob under Ahimelek (1 Sam. xxi.), according to 
the prescriptions of the law. The ark of the covenant is carried into 
the battle-field (1 Sam. iv. 3. &c, 2 Sam. xi. 11.), agreeably to what 
is stated in Numb. x. 35. The Philistines are punished on account 
of it (1 Sam. vi. 19. &c, 2 Sam. vi. 6.), agreeably to Numb. iv. 20. 
On all important occasions, God is consulted by the Urim and 
Thummim of the high priest, connected with the ephod (1 Sam. xiv. 
3. 37., xxiii. 9. &c, xxx. 7., compared with Exod. xxviii.). To the 
prophets is conceded without opposition that authority with which 
the law invests them. (See Deut. xviii. 18. &c, compared with 1 Sam. 
ii. 27. &c, iii. 20., vii. 5, &c, x. 17. &c. ; 2 Sam. vii. xii. 1—15.) 

Verbal quotations and reminiscences of the law may be seen in 
these books (1 Sam. ii. 13. compared with Deut. xviii. 3.). Samuel's 
language in 1 Sam. xv. 29. is from Numb, xxiii. 19. In the trans- 
actions respecting the choice of a king, these references to the law 
are particularly observable (1 Sam. viii. — x.). Compare viii. 5. with 
Deut. xvii. 14. Compare also 1 Sam. x. 25. with Numb. xvii. 22. 
The language of 1 Sam. xii. 3. is imitated from Numb. xvi. 15., Lev. 
v. 23., Numb. xxxv. 31., Lev. xx. 4. Compare also xii. 14. with 
Deut. i. 26. 43., ix. 7. 23., xxxi. 27. The destruction of the Ama- 
lekites, commanded by Samuel and effected by Saul (in 1 Sam. xv.), 
rests upon Exod. xvii. 8. &c. and Deut. xxv. 17 — 19. Compare also 
2 Sam. vii. 22 — 24. with Deut. iv. 7., x. 21., and Lev. xxvi. 12, 
13., Exod. xix. 5. 

The books of the Kings exhibit still more distinct allusions to the 
Pentateuch and quotations from it. Thus 1 Kings ii. 3., where 
David at his death charges his son, " Keep the charge of the Lord 
thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his command- 
ments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the 
law of Moses." The prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the 
temple (1 Kings viii.) forms a commentary on the law, especially on 






Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 627 

the blessings and curses pronounced upon the people by Moses, as 
recorded in Lev. xxvi. and Deut. xxviii. Compare viii. 23. with 
Deut. vii. 9. ; verse 33. with Lev. xxvi. 40. 42., Deut. xxviii. 25. ; 
verse 35. with Deut. xi. 17., and Lev. xxvi. 19.; verses 37 — 40. 
with Lev. xxvi. 16. &c. &c, and Deut. xxviii. 21. &c. ; verse 51. 
with Deut. iv. 20. ; verse 53. with Exod. xix. 5, 6., Lev. xx. 24. 
26.; verse 56. with Deut. xii. 10, 11.; verse 57. with Deut. 
xxxi. 6. 8. 

The history of Elijah and Elisha, and their exertions on behalf 
of religion in the kingdom of Israel, show some acquaintance with 
the Mosaic law even there. The first words of Elijah to Ahab 
(1 Kings xvii. 1.) are a particular application of the denunciation in 
Deut. xi. 16, 17. His sacrifice on Carmel (1 Kings xviii. 23. 33.) 
is conducted according to Lev. i. 6 — 8. The mode of deciding which 
he chose refers to Lev. ix. 23, 24. The narrative of his journey to 
Horeb rests on the Pentateuch (xix.). The forty days correspond to 
the forty years of Israel's leading in the wilderness ; the food which 
the angel brings him, to the manna. The appearance of the Lord 
on the mountain is a repetition of what happened to Moses (compare 
xix. 9. &c. with Exod. xxxiii. 21., xxxiv. 6.). The refusal of Naboth 
to sell the inheritance of his fathers refers to Lev. xxv. 23. and 
Numb, xxxvi. 8. The judicial transaction respecting him (xxi. 10.) 
is founded upon Deut. xvii. 6., xix. 15., Numb. xxxv. 30. The accu- 
sation is based upon Exod. xxii. 28., Deut. xiii. 1, 2. &c.,xvii. 5. The 
words of Micah in 1 Kings xxii. 17. refer to Numb, xxvii. 16, 17. 
In 2 Kings ii. 9. the phrase D?itf* ''S, a double portion, in Elisha's 
words to Elijah, is taken from Deut. xxi. 17. The translation of 
Elijah refers to Gen. v. 24. Other allusions are found in 2 Kings 
iii. 19. to Deut. xx. 19, 20. ; in iii. 20. to Exod. xxix. 39. ; in iv. 1. 
to Lev. xxv. 40.; in iv. 16. to Gen. xviii. 10. 14.; in iv. 42. to 
Deut. xviii. 4, 5., Lev. ii. 14., xxiii. 14. ; in v. 7. to Deut. xxxii. 39.; 
in vi. 17. to Gen. xxxii. 2, 3. ; in vi. 28. &c. to Lev. xxvi. 29., Deut. 
xxviii. 53. 57, 58.; in vii. 2. to Gen. vii. 11.; and the narrative of 
the lepers in chapter vii. shows the strict observance of the Mosaic 
regulation in the kingdom of Israel (Numb. v. 3., Lev. xiii. 46.). 
Thus the law is referred to in the history throughout. There are 
even verbal allusions to the law of Moses, the commands, statutes, 
ordinances, and judgments which God had given to his servant 
(1 Kings ii. 3., vi. 12., ix. 4., xi. 33.; 2 Kings x. 31., xxiii. 21.); 
and to king Joash at his coronation was given the testimony (2 Kings 
xi. 12.). Under Josiah the original copy of the law was found in 
the temple (2 Kings xxii. 8. &c). 

It is unquestionable that the books of the Chronicles presuppose 
and imply the existence of the present Pentateuch. Traces of the 
existence and authority of the law as a rule of life and worship are 
numerous, as might have been expected from the Levitical and 
priestly stand -point of the writer. And in Ezra and Nehemiah we 
find evidence of the same fact. 

When we look at Old Testament prophecy we may also observe 
that it derives from the Pentateuch materials and justification on 



628 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

behalf of its announcements. The prophets refer to the law, employ 
its language, continue its predictions, and threaten the people with 
its curses. Those belonging to the kingdom of Judah allude to it, 
even the oldest among them. Thus Obadiah exhibits a reference to 
Numb. xxiv. 21. in the fourth verse of his book. In verses 17 — 19. 
he announces a new realisation of the prediction in Numb. xxiv. 18, 
19. Joel presupposes the existence of the Levitical worship, and pre- 
sents obvious references to the Pentateuch, sometimes verbal ones, 
as in ii, 3. to Gen. xiii. 10. ; ii. 2. to Exod. x. 14. ; ii. 13. to Exod. 
xxxiv. 6., xxxii. 14. Compare also ii. 23. with Deut. xi. 13, 14. ; 
iii. 3. (ii. 30. English version) with Deut. vi. 22. Isaiah contains many- 
references to the Pentateuch. Chapter i. 2 — 4. are based on Deut. 
xxxii. ; verses 5 — 9. on the threatenings in Lev. xxvi. and Deut. 
xxviii. ; verses 10 — 17. on the laws respecting sacrifices and festivals 
in the Pentateuch, and the precepts laid down there relating to judg- 
ment and justice, especially towards the widow and orphan, the poor 
and helpless. Chapter iii. 9. refers to Gen. xix. 5. ; and xi. 15, 16. 
to what is related in Exod. xiv. The song of praise in xii. alludes to 
that in Exod. xv. Chapter xxiv. 18. is taken from Gen. vii. 11. 
The language applied to the people in xxx. 9. is founded upon Deut. 
xxxii. 6. 20. In xxx. 17. we discover a parallel to Lev. xxvi. 8. 
and Deut. xxxii. 30. References to the Pentateuch in Micah are 
also numerous, as in i. 7. to the law in Deut xxiii. 18. In v. 6. 
" the land of Nimrod" is from Gen. x. 10. In v. 7. there is a refer- 
ence to the language of Deut. xxxii. 2. Chapter vi. 1, 2. alludes 
to Deut. xxxii. 1. In vi. 4. there is a reproduction of the phraseo- 
logy of Exod. xiii. 3., xx. 2. ; vi. 5. is based on Numb. xxii. — xxiv. $* 
vi. 8. refers to Deut. x. 12. In vi. 13 — 16. there is a summary re- 
petition of the threatenings of Lev. xxvi. and Deut. xxviii. The 
prophet Nahum describes Deity in the predicates of the Penta- 
teuch (compare i. 2. with Exod. xx. 5., Deut. iv. 24.). The third 
verse of chapter i. is borrowed from Numb. xiv. 17, 18. and Exod. 
xxxiv. 6, 7. Habakkuk iii. 3. is based upon Deut. xxxiii. 2. Zepha- 
niah often refers to the Pentateuch, especially to Deuteronomy. 
Thus i. 13. may be compared with Deut. xxviii. 30. 39. ; i. 15. with 
Deut. xxviii. 29. ; i. 16, 17. with Deut. xxviii. 52. ; i. 18. with Deut. 
xxxii. 21, 22. ; iii. 5. with Deut. xxxii. 4. ; iii. 19. with Deut. xxvi. 
17 — 19. Jeremiah and Ezekiel also show an acquaintance with the 
Pentateuch, as is apparent by comparing Jer. iv. 23. with Gen. i. 2. ; 
v. 19. with Gen. xv. 13. ; xxxii. 18. with Exod. xx. 5. &c. ; xi. 1 — 8., 
especially the 4th verse, with Deut. iv. 20. ; xxiii. 17. with Deut. 
xxix. 19. &c. ; xxxiv. 14. with Exod. xxi. 2., Deut. xv. 12. ; xlviii. 45. 
with Numb. xxi. 28. : Ezekiel xx. 5. with Exod. vi. 3. &c. ; xx. 11. 
with Levit. xviii. 5. ; xxii. 26. with Lev. x. 10. ; xliv. 20. &c. with 
Lev. xxi. 2. &c. ; xliv. 28. with Numb, xviii. 20.; xx. 6. 15. with 
Exod. iii. 8. ; xviii. 7. with Deut. xxiv. 11. &c. 

Even the prophets belonging to Israel as distinguished from Judah 
appear familiar with the historical narratives of the Pentateuch as 
well as with the commands and prohibitions of the law, for they 
apply them to the circumstances of their contemporaries, promising, 



Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 629 

threatening, and comforting accordingly. Amos and Hosea do so. 
In ii. 4. the former proclaims destruction to Judah, " because they 
have despised the law of the Lord, and have not kept his command- 
ments;" ii. 7. rests upon Exod. xxiii. 6., Deut. xvi. 19., xxiv. 17., 
xxvii. 19., xxvii. 18., Levit. xx. 3.; ii. 8. refers to Exod. xxii. 25, 
26. (26, 27.), Deut. xxiv. 12.; ii. 9. to Numb. xiii. 32, 33.; ii. 10. 
to Deut. xxix. 4. (5.); ii. 11, 12. to Numb. vi. 3., Deut. xviii. 15.; 
iii. 2. to Deut. xiv. 2. ; iv. 4, 5. to Numb. xv. 3., Deut. xiv. 28., 
xxvi. 12. ; iv. 9, 10. to Deut. xxviii. 22. 27., Levit. xxvi. 25. ; iv. 11. 
to Deut. xxix. 22. ; v. 11. to Deut. xx-viii. 30. 39. The feasts pre- 
scribed in the Pentateuch were celebrated in the kingdom of Israel, 
and the various kinds of sacrifices presented under the same names. 
(Comp. Amos v. 21, 22. with Leviticus.) The prophet's deprecation 
for the people (ch. vii. 1. &c.) is copied from the language of Moses 
in Exod. xxxii. 9. 14., Numb. xiv. 11. &c. In the ninth chapter 
verse 3. alludes to Numb. xxi. 6., verse 8. to Deut. vi. 15., verse 1.2. 
to Deut. xxviii. 9, 10., verse 14. to Deut. xxx. 3. &c. Traces of the 
existence of the Pentateuch in Hosea are as numerous as in Amos. 
Thus ii. 1. (i. 10.) alludes to Gen. xxii. 17., xxxii. 13. ; ii. 2. (i. 11.), 
and ii. 17. refer to Exod. i. 10., Deut. xvii. 15. ; ii. 10. to Deut. vii. 
13., xi. 14. ; ii. 17. to Exod. xxiii. 13. ; iii. 1. to Deut. xxxi. 18. ; 
iv. 10. to Levit. xxvi. 26. ; v. 6. to Exod. x. 9. ; v. 14. to Deut. 
xxxii. 39. ; ix. 4. and 10. to Deut. xxvi. 14., xxxii. 10., Numb. 
xxv. 3. &c. In the 11th and 12th chapters many references to the 
early history of the people occur, showing a clear acquaintance with 
Genesis and Exodus. 

In like manner the poetical literature of the age of David and 
Solomon presupposes the Pentateuch. The Psalms are a precious 
result of the life of Israel under the law, as appears from the first 
Psalm, which serves as the introduction to the whole. Accordingly 
the excellency of the law is described in Psalms xix. 8. &c.,and cxix. 
The sacred singers were acquainted even with the historical portions 
of the law, and speak of it as scripture (n?|U?) Psal. xl. 8. Psal. viii. 
refers to Gen. i. 26. &c. ; Psal. xix. to Gen. i. 7. ; Psal. xxiv. 1, 2. 
to Gen. i. 2. 9, 10. 22.; Psal. xxxiii. 6. to Gen. ii. 1.; Psal. xxix. 
10., xxxiii. 7., &c. refer to the flood. To the history of the patri- 
archs there are allusions in Psal. xlvii. 10., Ix. 9. (comp. Gen. xlix. 
10., Numb. xxi. 18.), cv. ex. 4. &c. (Compare also Psal. xv. 5., Ii. 9., 
xl. 7., lvi. 13., Ii. 18., lxvi. 13—15., cxvi. 14. 18. &c.) The Pro- 
verbs are also the result of reflection on the divine revelation given 
in the law, though they contain few verbal allusions to the Penta- 
teuch. (Compare Prov. viii. 22. &c, with Gen. i. ; and xxxi. 3. with 
Deut. xvii. 17.) 

References in Job to the law of Moses have been found in xv. 7., 
xxvi. 6. &c, xxxviii. 4. &c. Compare also iv. 19. and x. 9. with Gen. 
iii. 19.; xii. 7 — 10. with Gen. i. 19—25. and ix. 2.; xxvii. 3. with 
Gen. ii. 7. ; xxii. 6. with Exod. xxii. 26., Deut. xxiv. 6. 10 — 14. 
Allusions more or less distinct may be perceived in vi. 27., xxiv. 
2—4. 9., &c. to Exod. xxii. 20. &c, Levit. xxv. 35. &c, Deut. 
xix. 14., xxvii. 17. &c; in xxxi. 26, 27. to Deut. iv. 19., xvii. 3. Com- 



630 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

pare the words in v. 14. Avith Deut. xxviii. 29. ; in xxxi. 11. with 
Levit. xviii. 17. &c. Even the writer of Solomon's Song is supposed 
by Delitzsch to betray his acquaintance with Genesis in mentioning 
Mahanaim (vii. I.). 1 

There are various elements which should be taken into account in 
judging of the array of references and allusions to the Pentateuch 
now adduced. 

1. Has their number been unnecessarily augmented ? We believe 
that it has been so by Hengstenberg, Havernick, and Keil. They 
have brought together more passages than will stand the test of cri- 
ticism, overloading their side of the question with allusions to the 
Pentateuch, verbal or otherwise, which cannot fairly be reckoned as 
such. 

2. A due discrimination should be exercised in separating refer- 
ences to the Pentateuch. Traditional knowledge of things contained 
in the books should be distinguished from knowledge based on some- 
thing icritten. The part or parts which were undoubtedly written 
by Moses should also be separated from the rest. The Pentateuch 
in its present condition should be considered apart from what it was 
before the editor finally adjusted and combined the parts. But 
Hengstenberg proceeds on the supposition that all the books as they 
are came from the one person, and repudiates the idea of dissevering 
parts from one another. 

3. The general ignorance of the people should always be kept in 
mind beside the knowledge possessed by their leaders and teachers. 
Even had the people generally known written records, they could not 
have derived more benefit from them than from oral tradition and 
teaching. 

4. Attention should be given to the possible explanation of re- 
ferences and allusions to the Pentateuch in the books of Joshua, 
Judges, &c, viz. that the writer or compiler living long after the 
events described by him occurred, has associated with them pheno- 
mena taken from records belonging to the interval between. This 
may account for some at least of the particulars appearing in the 
books which now follow the Pentateuch in the canonical list. 

5. There is no good reason for supposing that the author of the 
book of Joshua used the written Pentateuch. All the quotations 
and allusions adduced for this purpose are nugatory, as will appear 
hereafter. In reference to the other historical books, their presup- 
posing the existence of the Pentateuch does not imply that it was 
written by Moses, or so early as his time. As little does the alleged 
oldest prophet, Obadiah, (Havernick, Keil, Caspari,) prove the Mosaic 
composition. The earliest Psalms also, even could they be ascer- 
tained, are of no use in the argument. Granting therefore the per^ 
tinency of all the allusions accumulated by Hengstenberg and others, 
they are of no avail in making the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch 
probable, except indeed, those in the book of Joshua, which go far to 

1 See Havernick's Einleit. i. 2. ; Hengstenberg's Authentie des Pentateuches, vols. i. 
and ii. ; Keil's Einleit. § 34. p. 132. et seqq.; Delitzsch's Genesis, p. 8. et seqq. 



Authorship and Date of the Pentateuch. 631 

prove it on his view of the time when the latter was written, but are 
equally irrelevant as the rest on the assumption of its correct date. 

We depart from the hypothesis of Delitzsch in relation to the 
Jehovist, for it does not allow of a sufficiently long interval between 
him and the Elohist. Both wrote independently, — how long apart in 
point of time cannot be ascertained. Probably one hundred years at 
least intervened. The Jehovist may have written in the time of the 
Judges ; while the Elohist was in the time of Joshua. We do not 
suppose that either document was much read, or circulated as we 
should now say. A knowledge of the one or the other must have 
been confined to a few persons, to those who had to do with the con- 
ducting of the worship of God and the affairs of the people generally. 
The fact that they were known to some after they had appeared, 
accounts for the allusions found to their contents in the earliest suc- 
ceeding historical books, for all at least that are pertinent ; and if 
there be specific references to the Pentateuch as a written whole, 
in those books, they may proceed from one who lived long after the 
events described in them occurred, or are proofs that he wrote later 
than the Pentateuch itself. But few if any such verbal references 
occur. 

But it may be asked, if the Elohistic writer compiled his docu- 
ment so early as Joshua's time, and the Jehovist wrote in the period 
of the Judges, how is it to be explained that the Elohim document 
contains indications of the time after the death of Joshua and the 
expulsion of the Canaanites from Palestine (Levit. xviii. 28.), and 
the Hebraising of the land (Gen. xl. 15.), and in the time of the 
kings? (Gen. xxxvi. 31.) In like manner, the Jehovist has in his 
document as much as implies that the Canaanites had been ex- 
pelled from Palestine (Gen. xiii. 7.), and that the time of the Judges 
was past. (Numb, xxxii. 41. comp. Judg x. 4.) These notices in 
the Elohistic and Jehovistic sections respectively have been used to 
determine the dates of the two parts. But this mode of proof is pre- 
carious, unless it could be shown that the Jehovistic portion had 
been incorporated with the Elohistic one immediately after it was 
written, without alteration being made in the older part, and without 
interpolation. So far however from that being a probable thing, 
there was a final writer who retouched, added to, and variously inter- 
polated both. Not until his day was the Pentateuch in its present 
state. It is likely that the passages here and there which seem to 
bring down the composition to the time of the kings were inserted 
by this reviser. We should refer to him all the places that unequi- 
vocally imply the expulsion of the Canaanites from the land of pro- 
mise and the existence of kings, as in Gen. xii. 6., xxxvi. 31., whether 
they belong now to the Elohistic or Jehovistic documents. He who 
fully and finally completed the Pentateuch lived in the time of the 
kings, of Saul or David perhaps, as such later notices show. In this 
manner we can reconcile some of the references in the later books 
collected by Heno-stenberg and Havernick with an earlier composi- 
tion of the two principal documents composing the Pentateuch in its 
present state. Many of them, however, merely show a traditional 



632 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

knowledge of laws and events as old as Moses himself. Others allude 
to written memorials without implying the past composition of the 
entire Pentateuch, — either to Deuteronomy which Moses penned, or 
the few other parts which he also wrote, or to the records whence 
the Elohist and Jehovist drew some of their materials, or to the Elohist 
document, or the Jehovist one. None necessarily implies an earlier 
completion of the Pentateuch as it now is, than the time of the first 
kings. 

After the ingenious investigation of Hupfeld, the appellation Sup- 
plementary hypothesis is now seen to be inappropriate, because the 
Jehovist did something more important than simply furnish a kind of 
appendix to the Elohistic document. He wrote independently and 
with a different object. We prefer the name Documentary hy- 
pothesis as most pertinent, now that justice has been done to the 
Jehovist. 

With regard to the Crystallisation-hypothesis of Ewald, as De- 
litzsch terms it, none seems to have adopted it. Rightly so, for it 
lacks all verisimilitude or probability. Nothing but an excess of 
subjectivity could have led that scholar to divide the Pentateuch into 
four portions of different ages, to which the Deuteronomist, who is 
also said to be final author of the book of Joshua belonging at first 
to the Pentateuch, gave its last form. And it is surprising to see 
how he fixes the respective times of the four parts, supposing that the 
book of the Covenant, which is the oldest, was written in the time of 
Samson ! ' 

Many have shown too great anxiety to ascribe the authorship of 
books to well known names. But if various historical works, now 
forming an integral part of the canon, cannot possibly be referred to 
known persons on the ground of external evidence — if in their case 
we must gather from internal evidence alone who the writers proba- 
bly were, there is no cause for proceeding differently in the case of 
the Pentateuch. It is true that tradition has uniformly testified for 
the Mosaic .authorship of the first five books of the Old Testament; 
but if internal evidence do not agree with it, there is good ground for 
forsaking it. A tradition of this kind cannot be infallible, unless 
clearly established by Christ and his apostles. We can account for 
the tradition in question, because Moses wrote the substance of the 
Pentateuch. Hence the tradition is popularly correct. If scientific 
theology detect parts that did not proceed from Moses, the tradition 
may be taken in a sense consistent therewith, as long as Moses was 
the author of the moral law and the legislation recorded in the fifth 
book. Where external and internal evidence disagree, it will usually 
be found that the former should give way. So it has been in the 
question before us. The internal evidence has fairly caused a great 
modification or alteration in the authority of the external. Inspira- 
tion does not stand or fall with certain names ; as some would lead us 
to suppose it does, from the line of argument they pursue. Joshua 
was inspired as well as Moses. So was Eleazar. So were many 
others whose names we may not know. It is incorrect to suppose 
1 See Ewald's Geseliiehte ties Volkes Israel, vol. i. 



On the Book of Joshua. 633 

that only persons who wrote books preserved in the canon were in- 
spired. And it is equally erroneous to assume that they were inspired 
as writers, not as teachers or religious men generally. It is true that 
some possessed a larger measure of the Spirit of God than others : the 
phenomena of the books themselves evince that inspiration had de- 
grees. All the writers were not enlightened to the same extent. 
Hence we do not believe that the authority or credibility of the Pen- 
tateuch is lessened by repudiating the Mosaic authorship of the first 
four books, with some important exceptions. If one or more writers 
were employed upon them, why should he or they not have possessed 
the Spirit of God ? If three or four persons collected and digested 
the materials, employing both oral tradition and written documents, 
why should they not have done so under the same divine superin- 
tendence which Moses himself may be supposed to have employed ? 
The authority of the Pentateuch is not in the least impaired, as far 
as we can see, by the view now taken of its authorship. The books 
contain as true narratives, as correct statements, as sacred a cha- 
racter, as they would have done on the hypothesis of their Mosaic 
composition. If divine authority be claimed for them because Moses 
wrote them, divine authority should also be claimed for them because 
they were written after him by unknown persons, and treasured up 
as sacred records by prophets as well as priests. They were con- 
sidered a faithful memorial of times and events prior to and contem- 
poraneous with Moses. 



CHAP. III. 



The book of Joshua, which immediately follows the Pentateuch, is 
so called because it describes the events in which Joshua the son of 
Nun performed a leading part. It commences with the word s n*J, 
and it happened, whence it may be regarded as a continuation of the 
Pentateuch. Beginning with the death of Moses, it narrates the 
conquest of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua, the subsequent 
division of the land among the twelve tribes, agreeably to the divine 
arrangements communicated to Moses, and the establishment of the 
Jewish church in it, thus covering a period reaching to the death of 
Joshua. Hence it comprises the history of about thirty years, not 
seventeen as some have supposed. 

The book may be divided into three parts : — 

I. A narrative of the conquest of the land. (i. — xii.) 

II. The division of the conquered land, including the parts not yet 
acquired, (xiii. — xxii.) 

III. The last addresses of Joshua to the people, his death, and that 
of Eleazar. (xxiii. xxiv.) 

These may be subdivided in the following manner: I. — 1. Call of 
Joshua to be leader of the people and his commands to the twelve 
tribes to prepare themselves for the enterprise before them. (ch. i.) 
2. His sending out of the spies to bring back an account of the city of 



634 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Jericho, the miraculous passage over Jordan, erection of memorial 
stones, the encampment at Gilgal, the circumcision of the people, and 
their celebration of the passover. (ii. — v. 12.) 3. Encouragement of 
Joshua by an angel who appeared to him, the capture of Jericho and 
of Ai, the public reading of the law of Moses on Mount Ebal. 
(v. 13 — -viii, ) 4. The politic confederacy of the Gibeonites with the 
children of Israel, the war with the confederated Canaanitish kings 
at Gibeon, and the taking of the southern part of the land. (ix. x.) 
5. The war with the northern Canaanites. (xi.) 6. A list of the con- 
quered kings of Canaan, (xii.) 

II. — 1. A general division of Canaan, containing the divine com- 
mand for the partition, with an account of the parts not yet taken, 
and the department assigned by Moses to the half-tribe of Manasseh. 
(xiii.) 2. A particular apportionment of Canaan among the tribes, 
including the portion of Caleb, the lot of Judah, of Ephraim, and of 
Manasseh. (xiv. — xvii.) 3. Continuation of the distribution at Shiloh, 
including the territories of Benjamin, Simeon, Zebulon, Issachar, 
Asher, Naphtali, and Dan. (xviii. xix.) 4. The appointment of the 
cities of refuge, and of the Levitical cities, (xx. xxi.) 5. The dismis- 
sion from the camp of the two tribes and half who settled on the other 
side of Jordan, their return, and the transactions arising out of the 
erection of an altar on the borders of Jordan in token of their com- 
munion with the children of Israel, (xxii.) 

III. — 1. Joshua's address to the Israelites, in which he reminds them 
of the great benefits received from God, and urges them to obedience, 
(xxiii.) 2. His dying address to the people, and renewal of the 
covenant between them and God. (xxiv. 1- — 28.) 3. The death and 
interment of Joshua, the burial of Joseph's bones, and the death of 
Eleazar the high priest, (xxiv. 29 — 33.) 

The object and end of the entire book is to show the faithfulness 
of God in fulfilling his promises to the patriarchs, by a historical 
narration of the manner in which the covenant-people under the 
leadership of Joshua conquered and received for their inheritance the 
land of Canaan. (Comp. i. 2 — 6., xxi. 43 — 45. ; Deut. xxxi. 7.) 

It has been thought by several modern critics, as Bleek, Ewald, 
Stahelin, Tuch, De Wette, Von Lengerke, that the book of Joshua 
was closely connected with the Pentateuch in its origin. The basis 
of it was the Elohim document, which also formed the foundation of 
the first four books of Moses ; that document having embraced not 
merely the earlier history, but having reached also to the conquest of 
Canaan and its partition. Jehovistic elements may also be traced in 
it, though we do not think that the Jehovist himself was the person 
who completed it. According to this view it was always in a certain 
sense intimately connected with the Law or Torah. It appears to 
us that it is not difficult to detect in the book before us traces of the 
primitive Elohim document, and subsequent additions to it, as well 
as interpolations. The Jehovist mostly appears in the first twelve 
chapters ; the Elohist in the remainder, though with a strong inter- 
mixture of Jehovistic elements. That the work, as we now have it, 
was compiled from various documents has been inferred from the fol- 
lowing phenomena. 



On the Book of Joshua. 635 

1. Various discrepancies appear in it, which De Wette adduces 
thus 1 : — 

The conquest and extirpation of all the Canaanites as well as the 
occupation of the entire land are ascribed to Joshua (xi. 16 — 23.,xii. 
7 ., &c. ; comp. xxi. 43. &c, xxii. 4.), which, however, is strikingly- 
contradicted by the survey given of the still unconquered country in 
xiii. 1., &c. (comp. also xvii. 14. &c, xviii. 3., xxiii. 5. 12.). 

We believe, with Keil 2 and others, that this contradiction is only 
apparent. The book has a continued reference to the divine pro- 
mises, in fulfilling which God caused the Canaanites to be smitten 
and expelled from the land ; while it is also remarked, in relation to 
the future, that Canaanites still continued in possession of cities and 
localities here and there, because, though the Almighty had promised 
the entire expulsion of the Canaanites, he had not promised it to be 
sudden and complete at once. The words in the 11th chapter 
23d verse form the solution of the difficulty, " So Joshua took the 
whole land, according to all that the Lord said unto Moses," the 
" whole land " being a popular phrase. Doubtless some Canaanites 
kept out of the way of Joshua, betaking themselves to their fast- 
nesses ; and assumed the offensive after the death of this destroyer. 
He conquered all the Canaanites whom he encountered. The uni- 
versal language is limited and explained by the notices elsewhere of 
places and tribes still unsubdued ; but it is not contradicted. 

There is a discrepancy between x. 36. 38., xi. 21., where it is re- 
lated that Hebron and Debir were conquered, and the Anakim cut 
off from the mountains, and xiv. 12., xv. 14. 17., compared with 
Judges i. 10, 11., where we see that at the partition of the land the 
Anakim were again in possession of these cities, and were not rooted 
out till after Joshua's death. 

Various replies have been given to this by Koenig, Stahelin, 
Havernick, and Keil. Havernick 3 thinks, that after Joshua took 
Hebron and Debir, he drove back the Anakim to the mountains ; 
but that the latter were by no means destroyed. Caleb received 
Hebron towards the close of Joshua's life ; yet the whole mountain 
district was not free from the Anakim. They were in possession of 
strong places, and only after these were taken from them could they 
be said to be fully conquered. A war began accordingly with three 
powerful tribes of Anakim, which was conducted by Judah and 
Caleb after Joshua's death. Thus it is maintained that the one con- 
quest was partial, leaving room for another after Joshua's time, which 
was final and total. The solution proposed is not improbable. 

There is also a discrepancy between xii. 10. 12. 16. 21. 23., accord- 
ing to which the kings of Jerusalem, Grezer, Bethel, Megiddo, and 
Dor were smitten by Joshua, andxv. 63. Compare Judg. i. 21., Josh, 
xvi. 10., Judg. i. 29. 22., Josh. xvii. 12., Judg. i. 27., where these 
cities remained in the hands of the Canaanites. 

A distinction should be made between smiting the kings and tak- 
ing their cities, as has been observed by Koenig, Von Lengerke, and 

1 Einleitung, u. s. w. p. 231. 2 Einlcitung, p. 168. 

3 Eiuleitung, ii. 1. p. 19. 



G36 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Keil. Joshua smote the kings., but did not take the cities. We 
confess, however, that this observation is scarcely consistent with the 
words of Josh. xii. 7. especially, " which Joshua gave unto the tribes 
of Israel for a possession. 5 ' 

According to i. 6., xi. 23., xii. 7., xiii. 7., xiv. 1 — 5. we expect that 
after the conquest was completed the land should be divided propor- 
tionately among the Israelites ; but after the tribes of Judah, Eph- 
raim, and the half-tribe of Manasseh have received their share (xv. — 
xvii.), a pause occurs in the task of distribution, through the slack- 
ness of the people as is alleged (xviii. 3.) ; it is resumed apparently in 
another place, at Shiloh (xviii. 1., xix. 51.), and the preceding distri- 
bution is altered in various particulars (xviii. 11 — xix. 51.). To this 
Keil replies as follows : — 

After the conquest of the land an approximate division of it had 
been made into nine or ten parts for the purpose of distribution by 
lot. After this the tribe whose lot had been drawn began to take 
possession of its inheritance. But the settlement of the limits of the 
inheritance which had fallen to each tribe could not be effected in a 
few days. It required longer time, and was fully decided perhaps 
only after the tribe had taken possession. In this manner the tribes 
of Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh entered successively on the occu- 
pation of their respective inheritances. While they were yet em- 
ployed in the business of taking possession, the place for the taber- 
nacle was determined, and the ark was placed accordingly at Shiloh. 
This naturally took the whole camp thither. As the further allocation 
by lot proceeded there, the remaining tribes evinced no great desire 
for settled dwelling-places, in consequence of their previous life and 
habits, as well as the fact that the remaining Canaanites appeared to 
require of them more exertion and opposition than a life in tents 
seemed to call for; while the still surviving old inhabitants of the 
country had been so oppressed by war that the tribes in question 
could hardly think of much annoyance from them provided they did 
not proceed to expel and root them out. But Joshua could not allow 
the matter to rest in this state, and blamed the slackness of these 
tribes, commanding them to take measures for the further distribution 
by lot. And since the tribe of Joseph had expressed dissatisfaction 
with the smallness of its inheritance, manifesting therein its cowardice 
in relation to the Canaanites who still remained within the allotted 
territory, Joshua may have perceived that if the allotment were con- 
tinued and completed according to the incipient approximative distri- 
bution of land, still greater discontent might arise among the remain- 
ing tribes, because some of them at least should probably receive 
localities in which the Canaanites would be more numerous and 
powerful than in the territory of Ejjhraim. Accordingly he enjoins 
that before proceeding to carry out the lot further, the remaining land 
should be accurately surveyed, divided into seven districts, and a de- 
scription of it laid before him, in order that the individual portions 
might be distributed by lot among the seven tribes. The result of 
this measurement must have shown that the territory left, after sub- 
tracting the portions of Judah and Joseph, was too small for the 



On the Book of Joshua. 637 

remaining seven tribes. It was also found that the share of Judah 
was greater than the tribe used (xix. 9.) ; on which account partial 
alterations of what had been done at the first distribution became ne- 
cessary. But the lot once taken could not be declared invalid, 
because it was looked upon as a divine decision ; and therefore no new 
division of the entire country among the collective tribes could be 
undertaken. Hence no other resource was left than to leave the two 
tribes in the parts which they had received by lot (xviii. 5.) ; but to 
take from their territories single portions for the remaining tribes, by 
which means the lot, that did not more nearly define the circum- 
ference and borders, remained unaffected. 1 

This answer is laboured and insufficient. It necessarily concedes 
some things in the position which it is intended to explain. 

According to i. — xi. Joshua carries on the Avar at the head of all 
the tribes (i. 12. &c, iv. 12., xxii.), but according to Judg. i. 1. &c, 
and even according to Josh. xvii. 14. &c, the individual tribes fought 
by themselves. Caleb fought for himself, xv. 13 — 19. See also xix. 47. 

In chapters xv., xvii., xix. the conquests made by individual tribes 
did not take place till after the division of the land and in part after 
the death of Joshua, whereas they are erroneously placed by De 
Wette and others before these occurrences. 

The ecclesiastical position of the people under Joshua appears to 
have been in entire accordance with the law (iii. 3. &c, viii. 33.). 
But one stumbles unexpectedly (in xxiv. 23.) upon idolatry, which 
appears also in Othniei's time. (Judg. iii. 1 — 11.) 

In answer to this we may remark, that the words of Joshua 
in xxiv. 23. do not speak of gross idolatry, but merely of such han- 
kering after strange gods as is perfectly compatible with the external 
legality of the ecclesiastical state in which the people then stood. 

Another discrepancy has been discovered between the sanctuary 
of Jehovah being at Sichem (xxiv. 25, 26.) and at Shiloh (Judg. xxi. 
19.). To this Keil replies after Masius, Michaelis, and Hengsten- 
berg, that BHJ?p3, in xxiv. 26., the sanctuary, denotes the holy place 
which Abraham had dedicated to the Lord. (Gen. xii. 6, 7.) 

But though we cannot aver that any contradiction has been proved, 
at least in the parts to which De Wette and others have thus directed 
particular attention, yet there are discrepancies, which one and the 
same writer would scarcely have left as they are. The arrangement 
and order of the notices concerning each tribe vary considerably. 
The boundaries are stated sometimes with greater, sometimes with 
less exactness ; while in relation to the tribe of Issachar they are en- 
tirely omitted. These diversities are particularly striking to one who 
compares the 13th and 14th chapters with the 18th and 19th, and are 
best accounted for by the hypothesis of documents differing from 
one another in form, if not in contents. 

In addition to diversities which appear in the contents here and 
three, hanging loosely together, and presenting some difficulty in being 
harmonised, there are also diversities in the manner of conception 

1 See Keil's Commentar ueber das Buch Josua, p. 267. et seqq. 
- See Commentar ueber d. Buch Josua, p. 408. 



638 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

and expression. This, indeed, would naturally arise from the fact 
that Elohistic and Jehovistic portions are both incorporated into the 
work. 

Diversity in the mode of conception is shown by the following 
particulars. In i. 4. the Euphrates is mentioned as the eastern 
boundary of the land, whereas in xiii. 3. &c, it is otherwise. Keil's 
reply to this is unsatisfactory, when he says 1 that in the latter place 
the limit is defined with geographical accuracy ; but the former has 
an oratorical character agreeably to its nature as a divine promise, 
and is particularised by the addition " all the land of the Hittites." 
Why the divine promise introduced by the solemn words, " The Lord 
spake unto Joshua, saying," should have an oratorical, i.e. exaggerated 
or inflated character, we cannot see. Surely a promise is as specific 
and accurate in the expressions employed as a historical notice. 

Again, according to xv. 11. 45 — 47. and 63. the Philistine cities 
appear in the possession of Judah, whereas in the geographical part 
(xiii. 3.) it is otherwise. To this Keil replies 2 , that it does not follow 
from the fact that Ekron, Gaza, and Ashdod, with the surrounding 
districts, were given by lot to the tribe of Judah, that they were in 
the actual possession of Judah. This is true, yet the answer is in- 
sufficient ; for xiii. 3. is in point of time subsequent to xv. 45. &c. 
The former relates what took place or existed just before the death 
of Joshua, the latter appears to point to a prior time in the life of 
Joshua. The reply would be satisfactory if it could be shown that 
the description in the 15th chapter does not imply that Judah had 
possession at that time of the places mentioned ; but this cannot be 
shown. The true solution, we apprehend, is, that xiii. 3. is Jeho- 
vistic, xv. 45. Elohistic. 

A diversity in the usus loquendi of the book may also be detected. 
Thus in some sections the usage of the word E3£> for tribe prevails, as 
in iii. 12., iv. 2. 4. 12., vii. 14. 16., xviii. 2. 4. 7., xxii. 7. 9. &c, 
xxiii. 4., xxiv.l.; but in others ng£ predominates, as in xiii. 15. 24., 
xiv. 1—4., xv. 1. 20, 21.,xvii. 1., xviii. 11., xix. 1.24. 40.48.,xx. 8., 
xxi. 4. &c. 3 It is vain for Keil to account for this difference by the 
different significations of the two words, the former denoting tribe, as 
a prevailing power, the latter referring to tribe according to its genea- 
logical ramification. The distinction is too subtile to have entered 
into the mind of the one writer for whom Keil contends ; and to have 
regulated his employment of terms. Besides, it does not hold good. 

The rare word T\jpnp, inheritance, possession, xi. 23., xii. 7., xviii. 
10., is met with only in portions that appear to be Jehovistic. The 
reason given by Keil for the word not appearing oftener is nugatory. 

Moses is termed \V\T\\ 1%%, servant of Jehovah, only in certain sec- 
tions, such as are historical not geographical. 4 - Keil's observation 
respecting this peculiarity is weak. 5 

In some sections ClVn D'onia, the priests, the Levites (iii. 3., viii. 33.), 
or simply D^niD, priests, is used (iii. 6. 15., vi. 4. 6. &c); but in others 

1 See liis Commentar, u. s. w. p. 8. 2 Commentar, Einleit. p. xviii. 

3 Comp. Stiihelin, Kritische Uutcrsuchungen, u. s. w. 

* Jahn, Einleit. vol. ii. p. 460. 5 Einleit. u.s.w. p. 171. 



On the Book of Joshua. 639 

the same persons are termed sons of Aaron (xxi. 4. 10. 13. 19.). The 
former expressions are Jehovistic, the latter Elohistic. Keil's obser- 
vation to account for the difference, viz., that in the 21st chapter the 
priests are not considered with respect to their office and position but 
according to their genealogical descent 1 , is far-fetched. Besides, 
there is a difference of general style observable in the first part, i.e. 
the first twelve chapters, and in the remainder. In the one there is 
a fulness of expression, and a roundness in the structure of periods, 
resembling the Jehovist, from whose document it was for the most 
part taken. But in the remaining parts there are repetitions and 
interpolated observations, which disturb the perspicuity of the narra- 
tive. 2 It is mere arbitrary assumption on the part of Keil to affirm 
that this diversity of style is accounted for by diversity of contents. 
The one is the Jehovistic style and manner ; the other, the Elohistic. 

In consequence of these phenomena we cannot subscribe to the 
view of Havernick, Keil, and others, who maintain the independence 
and unity of the book before us. It is true that it has a complete- 
ness of character — that its contents possess continuity and finish. It 
is so far independent as that it never formed a part of the Pentateuch, 
in the present state of that work. But the principal documents of 
which the Pentateuch was composed also constitute the body of 
Joshua's book. Both are mainly derived from the same sources. It 
is, therefore, nugatory to contend, as Keil does, that our pi-esent 
book of Joshua is distinguished from the Pentateuch by a peculiar 
phraseology. According to him, it knows not the archaisms which 
evenly pervade the five books of Moses. But the archaisms referred 
to depend on the view of the critic for their being such. Many of 
them adduced by Keil are only imaginary. The general agreement 
of the diction in Joshua with that in the Pentateuch is undeniable, 
and cannot be neutralised by a few expressions and forms of words 
which differ, such as 'WJl, which is said to occur twenty-six times in 
Joshua, instead of inn*, used eleven times in the Pentateuch ; jirvp or 
Jiy n-te^D, xiii. 12. 21. 27. 30. 31., instead of "D or "V n?^», Numb. 
xxxii. 33., Deut. iii. 4. 10. 13. ; K13J3, xxiv. 19., instead of K3j2, Exod. 
xx. 5., xxxiv. 14., Deut. iv. 24., v. 9. vi. 15.; ^^3 iOT„ ii. 19., 
instead of 13 10"i, Levit. xx. 9. 11—13. 16.; Y1W% N$, iii. 11. 13., 
treasurer of the house of Jehovah, vi. 19. 24. &c. &c. These pecu- 
liarities, if indeed they can be called such, are of no account in com- 
parison with the prevailing agreement existing between the Penta- 
teuch and Joshua in phraseology. 

As to the unity of the book, on behalf of which Keil is so zealous 
after the example of Steudel, Koenig, and Havernick, we admit that 
its different parts are connected ; and that all are penetrated with one 
and the same leading idea, — the conquest and division of the land 
agreeably to the divine promise repeatedly made to the patriarchs. 
God is shown to be a faithful and covenant-keeping God in assisting 
and enabling his chosen people to accomplish what had been predicted 
to their fathers. But this unity is not of a kind to justify the 

1 Einleit. u. s. w. p. 171. 

2 See Haaff, Offenbarung's GJaube und Kritik der bibl. Geschi chte, p. 1-32. et scqq. 



640 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Assumption of its being original, and having proceeded entirely from 
one and the same writer. It is not so close, consecutive, or chronological 
as to warrant that inference. On the contrary, parts do not well cohere 
here and there. Discrepancies cannot be denied. It is even difficult 
to withstand the view, that there are occasional contradictions. The 
contents and language are of a character to show diversity of mate- 
rials — the use of different and distinguishable documents. 

To show that the book does not present the close unity and inde- 
pendence ascribed to it, we should refer especially to iv. 9., which 
certainly interrupts the connection; to xi. 21. 23., compared with x. 
36 — 43., passages it is difficult to harmonise; and to viii. 30 — 35., 
which interrupts the course of the narrative because Joshua had 
not yet advanced to Ebal. 

Some think that the book was written by Joshua himself. Of this 
opinion were several of the fathers and Talmudical writers. Among 
the moderns the same view has been advocated by Gerhard, Diodati, 
Huet, Alber, Patrick, Tomline, Gray, and Koenig. But it is wholly 
inadmissible. The reasons assigned for it are not sufficient. They are 
chiefly the following. 

1. In xxiv. 26. Joshua is said to have written an account of the trans- 
actions " in the book of the law of God," so that the book which now 
bears his name forms a continuation of Deuteronomy, the close of 
which was written by Joshua. But the expression " these words " 
refers merely to his last address, and the subsequent resolution of the 
people to follow his example. The inference that if he wrote thus 
much it is likely that he committed to writing the other memorable 
events connected with his career, Ave look upon as improbable in the 
present instance. 

2. The author intimates in v. 1., by the expression " ive passed 
over," that he bore a part in the transactions. Here, however, the 
reading is not secure. The Kri, a marginal reading, has, " they passed 
over;" the LXX. have Siafialvsiv clvtovs, and the Vulgate transirent. 
With these versions agree the Targum of Jonathan, the Syriac and 
Arabic. Assuming, however, the correctness of the textual reading, 
it proves nothing, as may be seen by comparing Psalm lxvi. 6., where 
the same mode of speaking occurs, i. e. per communicationem. 

3. In the passage where the death and burial of Joshua are related, 
i. e. from xxiv. 29. to the end, the style differs from the rest of the 
book in the same manner as the style of the appendix in Deutero- 
nomy, where Moses's decease and burial are related ; and Joshua is 
here termed the servant of God, showing that the passage was added 
by a later and friendly hand. Here we deny the difference of style 
and diction both in the book of Joshua and in Deuteronomy. There 
is no perceptible variation of the kind asserted. 

4. According to Jahn, the whole book breathes the spirit of the 
law of Moses, which is an argument in favour of its having been 
written by Joshua, the particular servant of Moses. This proves 
nothing. 

On the other hand, the following considerations evince that Joshua 
did not write the book. 



On the Book of Joshua. 641 

1. The expression to this day (iv. 9., vii. 26., viii. 28, 29., x. 27., 
xiii. 13., xiv. 14., xv. 63., xvi. 10., xxii. 3. 17., xxiii., 8, 9.) indi- 
cates that the book in its present form was not contemporaneous with 
the occurrences it describes. To say with Kitto ' that the phrase 
merely implies that " Joshua did not promulgate the book immedi- 
ately after the events narrated," does not meet the requirements of 
the case. It presupposes a considerable interval of time. 

2. There are accounts of transactions in the book which took 
place after Joshua's death. Thus in xv. 13 — 19 , the taking of 
Hebron by Caleb, of Debir by Othniel, and in xix. 47. of Leshem 
by the Danites, was subsequent to the decease of Joshua, as may be 
seen from comparing Judg. i. 10 — 15. and xviii. Again, in Josh, 
xv. 63., we read that the children of Judah could not drive out the 
Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, but that the later dwelt 
with the children of Judah at Jerusalem to this day. This joint 
occupation of the city by two classes of inhabitants did not take 
place till after Joshua's death, when the children of Judah took it 
(Judg. i. 8.), though the Jebusites continued to keep possession of 
the stronghold of Zion till the time of David. (2 Sam. v. 6 — 8.) 
Compare also Josh. xiii. 2 — 5. with Judg. iii. 3.; xvi. 10. with 
Judg. i. 29. ; xvii. 11. with Judg. i. 27, 28., and xxiv. 29—33. 

How long after Joshua the book first appeared it is difficult to 
determine. Keil thinks that it was written soon after by one of the 
elders who survived the leader of Israel. 2 This he founds mainly 
on v. 1. 6., passages showing, as he contends, that the author be- 
longed to the Israelites who crossed the Jordan with Joshua. This 
view seems to be supported by vi. 25., where it is implied that 
llahab was still alive when that part at least was composed. We 
have already referred to v. 1., showing that the words may be taken 
communicatively, which Havernick and Keil vainly deny. The latter 
admits, however, that v. 6. may be so understood. In vi. 25. we 
must suppose that the writer took the expression as it stood in some 
document written near the time when the events recorded took place. 

The language of the book has also been adduced in favour of an 
early date. It is free from all traces of a later period, and presents 
an aspect unquestionably ancient. But this is mere assertion, show- 
ing the apologist rather than the critic. The antique character of 
the language is open to grave doubt, It will not stand the test of 
criticism. 

We believe that it was written, or rather compiled, not later than 
the time of David and Solomon, on the following grounds. 

According to xvi. 10. the Canaanites still dwelt in Gezer ; 
whei*eas the town was destroyed in Solomon's reign by Pharaoh, 
(1 Kings ix. 16.) According toxv. 63. the Jebusites were not yet ex- 
pelled from Jerusalem, which they were by David. (2 Sam. v. 6 — 9.) 
From ix. 27. it would appear that the place for the temple was not 
yet chosen, as it was under David. (2 Sam. xxiv. 18. &c. ; 1 Chron. 
xxi. 18. &c, xxii. 1.) It is probable, therefore, that the book as we 

1 In Cj-clopEedia of Biblical Literature, art. Joshua. 
- Commentar, u. s. w. Einleitung, p. xlvii. 
VOL. IT. T T 



642 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

now have it was composed in the time of Saul. An unknown 
writer compiled it from the Elohim and Jehovah documents, iising 
contemporary notices besides, and interspersing his own remarks here 
and there. 

Even in the first part of the book there is reason for believing 
that the Jehovist had written sources before him, proceeding from 
eyewitnesses or persons contempoi'ary with the occurrences related. 
The accurate statistical accounts in iv. 13., vii. 4, 5., viii. 12. 25. appear 
to be derived from written documents. In vi. 25., he has followed 
his authority so closely as to say that " Rahab dwelleth in Israel 
unto this day? But in the remainder of the book, i. e., from the 
thirteenth chapter to the end, which was derived mainly from the 
Elohist, the use of documents is most apparent. In xviii. 4 — 9. we 
read that the great captain of the Israelites caused a survey of the 
land to be made and described in a book. In xxiv. 25. it is related 
that Joshua committed to writing an account of the renewal of the 
covenant with God. But the nature of the subject itself shows the 
truth of the view stated. It was necessary to prevent disputes 
among the tribes about their respective boundaries, for which pur- 
pose the towns and districts must have been inserted in public lists 
or registers. If the towns belonging to Simeon (xix. 2 — 8.), and 
those of the priests and Levites (xxi.), be compared with the books 
of Chronicles (1 Chron. iv. 28—32., and vi. 39—66.), it will be 
found that the compiler of the latter used independent lists. And 
we have seen that the discrepancies here and there in the book 
of Joshua point to different sources. Again, the discourses of Caleb, 
Joshua, and Phinehas must either have been taken from written 
documents, or they are condensed abstracts made by one present 
at their delivery. In all cases we hold that a careful and con- 
scientious use was made of authentic documents. A genuine theo- 
cratic character belongs to the period described. All is in harmony 
with the law. The graphic delineation too of the leading per- 
sonages, Joshua, Caleb, and Phinehas, strikes the most inattentive 
reader. 

Whoever the final writer was, we must believe that he used the 
Jehovah and Elohim documents, as well as others, so as to give a 
faithful narrative of the important transactions in which Joshua bore 
the leading part. His interpolations and general method of pro- 
cedure cannot now be detected. 

Some critics bring down the composition after the exile. Masius, 
Spinoza, Hasse, and Maurer do so. De Wette appears to agree Avith 
them. The grounds for this view are not sufficient or valid. Thus 
it is alleged that the sixty towns of Jair (xiii. 30.), as in 1 Kings 
iv. 13., stand in opposition to Judg. x. 4. But there is no contra- 
diction. It is also alleged that the book of songs or poems, the so- 
called hook of Jasher, points to a period after David (x. 1 3. compared 
with 2 Sam. i. 18.). But it is not certain or probable that this col- 
lection of poems originated in or after David's time. It was made 
successively in praise of the theocratic heroes ; and David's elegy on 
Saul and Jonathan was received into it. The appellations Jerusalem 



On the Book of Joshua. 643 

and mountains of Israel do not, as has been said, appear for the first 
time in David's day, but reach up to a more ancient epoch. Nor 
can it be held with Maurer, that the notice respecting Jerusalem's 
inhabitants in xv. 63. (compared with 2 Sam. v. 6., xxiv. 16.) 
relates to the period after David. 1 On the contrary, it refers to an 
anterior time. It has been said, moreover, that the language in vi. 
26., where a curse is pronounced on him that should rebuild Jericho, 
agrees with the time of Ahab. (1 Kings xvi. 34.) But surely the 
reverse is shown. The composition of the book cannot be brought 
down to Ahab's time (923 b. a). 

Certain words and expressions have been adduced in favour of the 
late composition of the book. Its strongly Chaldaic diction has been 
noticed. We are unable to perceive the peculiarity in question. 
Little stress can be laid on all that has been brought forward on the 
point. The strongest examples of later diction are furnished by 
"Viny, v. 11, 12., and D<p?J, xxii. 8. The latter occurs in 2 Chron. i. 
11, 12. ; Eccles. v. 18., vi. 2. Others of less moment are, the use 
of the article as a relative, x. 24. ; D^rns for 0?^, xxiii. 15. ; *fllfc for 
Vl«, xiv. 12., xxii. 19. ; VDlpn, xiv. 8. ; ^yyt), to be prosperous, i. 7, 8. 
&c. &c. Some, if not all, of these have been disputed ; and it must 
be confessed that they are paralleled for the most part in the 
Pentateuch. 

One element in examining the time when the book of Joshua was 
composed lies in the connection subsisting between it and the Pen 
tateuch. Does the writer quote the Pentateuch ; or did he derive 
his information in part from it ? Some have thought that he used it 
as one of his sources, because the book contains also a description of 
the territories of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh 
situated on the left bank of the Jordan, which tribes entered into 
possession before the death of Moses. But this argument is of no 
force. Nor has any thing valid been adduced to show that the 
author of the book got some of his information from the Pentateuch. 
A comparison of Deut. xviii. 1, 2. and Numb, xviii. 20., with Josh. 
xiii. 14. 33., xiv. 4., and of Numb. xxxi. 8. with Josh. xiii. 21, 22. 
does not make the thing evident, as has been affirmed by Havernick. 
Neither does the repetition of the unusual form *S?K in Joshua show 
it. When it is also said that the author of Joshua's book repeats 
the statements of the Pentateuch in a more detailed form, mentioning 
the changes which had taken place since the Pentateuch was written 
(comp. Numb, xxxiv. 13, 14., with Josh. xiii. 7. &c. ; Numb, xxxii. 
37. with Josh. xiii. 17. &c. ; Numb. xxxv. with Josh, xxi.), the 
passages referred to evince nothing like quotation or references to 
things written. 2 In short, there is no valid reason for supposing 
that the writer used the Pentateuch, which indeed was hardly in 
existence so early. Whatever has been thought to prove his ac- 
quaintance with the Mosaic books is explained by the traditional 
knowledge current in his time, or by his use of the principal docu- 
ments incorporated into the Pentateuch. 

1 See his Commentar, p. 147. 2 Havcraick,Einleit. ii. 1. p. 57. 



644 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Another question connected with the examination and authorship 
of the book of Joshua is, was it written wholly or in part after the 
book of Judges? Havernick thinks that the second part was written 
after Judges, because he discovers traces in it of the use which the 
author made of the book of Judges. After adducing the following 
analogous passages in the two books — xiii. 3, 4. Judg. iii. 3.; Josh. xv. 
13. &c. Judg. i. 10. 20. ; Josh. xv. 15—19. Judg. i. 11 — 15.; Josh, 
xv. 63. Judg. i. 21.; Josh. xvi. 10. Judg. i. 29.; Josh. xvii. 12. 
Judg. i. 27. ; Josh. xix. 47. Judg. xviii., — he calls attention to the 
fact that the one book explains the text of the other by small inser- 
tions or omissions, as in the names Shesha, Achiman, and Talmai (Josh. 
xv. 14.), and it is twice remarked that they are p)VX} *33 and p^y.n »}»!?*. 
(Comp. Judg. i. 13.) The author of Joshua's book also makes use of 
more regular and usual grammatical forms, instead of the more 
difficult occurring in the book of Judges, as njfl for THin, and niTinn 
m^y for T\"hv, rpnnn. 1 The critic also states that the fact men- 
tioned in Josh. xix. 47. happened after the death of Joshua, accord- 
ing to Judg. xviii. 2., and maintains that the private expeditions of 
separate tribes against the Canaanites commenced after the same 
event, according to the express statement of the book of Judges. 
Little importance can be attached to any or all of these particulars. 
And it is incorrect to assume that no expedition of an individual 
tribe against the Canaanites took place before Joshua's death. On 
the conti'ary, the words of Joshua, xvii. 15., show the reverse. It 
is also doubtful whether the transaction related in Josh. xix. 47. and 
Judg. xviii. 2. be the same. The similarity of passages and notices in 
the two books can be better accounted for on another principle than 
Havernick's. 

After the preceding investigation of the time when the present 
book of Joshua was composed, we need not enumerate different opi- 
nions, as that of Von Lengerke, who assigns it to the time of Josiah ; 
Ewald to that of Manasseh, &c. The author cannot be known ; and 
it is idle to resort to conjectures respecting him, such as Phinehas 
assigned by Lightfoot; Eleazar by Calvin; Samuel by Van Til; 
Jeremiah by Henry. 

The historical character and credibility of the book have been 
variously estimated according to the theological opinions of those 
who have investigated or pronounced upon them. On the one hand, 
it is agreed that the influence of tradition may be perceived, making 
the contents unhistorical and partly mythical. Three events in par- 
ticular are said to betray the traditional character, viz. the standing 
still of the sun and moon on Gibeon at the command of Joshua, that 
he might destroy his enemies more effectually (x. 12 — 15.); the 
passage of the river Jordan, which divided before the ark (iii. 14 — 
17.); and the conquest of Jericho, whose walls suddenly fell at the 
sound of rams' horns, after having been compassed thirteen times in 
seven days (vi. 20.). But the first is a quotation from the poetical 
book of Jasher, and is no part of the word of God. The other two 

1 Havernick, Einlcit. ii. 1. p. 58. 



0?i the Book of Joshua. 645 

events involve the miraculous ; and Ave do not reckon it an axiom 
with some that miracles are impossible. There is no difficulty in 
admitting the historical character and credibility of miracles, to our 
mind. That the book is worthy of all credit is evident from the fact 
that the transactions recorded in it are related by other writers with 
little material deviation. Thus the conquest and division of Canaan 
are mentioned by Asaph (Psal. lxxviii. 53 — 65. compared with 
Psal. xliv. 2 — 4.) ; the slaughter of the Canaanites, by the writer of 
the 68th Psalm (verses 13 — 15.); the division of the waters of 
Jordan is alluded to in Psal. cxiv. 1 — 5., Hab. iii. 8. ; the tempest 
of hailstones after the slaughter of the southern Canaanites, by 
Hab. iii. 11 — 13. compared with Joshua x. 9 — 11.; and the setting 
up of the tabernacle at Shiloh (Josh, xviii. 1.) in the books of Judges 
and Samuel (Judg. xviii. 31., 1 Sam. i. 3. 9. 24., and iii. 21.). 
There can be little doubt that the book is authoritative and trust- 
worthy when we find it sanctioned not only in the Old Testament, 
but also in the New. (Compare Heb. iii. 5., xi. 31. ; James ii. 25.; 
Acts vii. 45. ; Heb. xi. 30., iv. 8.) 

Much pains have been taken to show that the Israelites had a just 
right to conquer Palestine. The endeavour is useless. They were 
originally tolerated in it as nomads or wandering shepherds, and 
could not thence obtain a right to possess the country. Accordingly 
Abraham purchased a burying-place at Mamre. But God promised 
the land to them. In taking possession of it they were divinely 
sanctioned. The destruction of the natives was enjoined by infinite 
wisdom ; and political as well as religious considerations showed its 
propriety. The clanger of again falling into slavery, and of being 
polluted with idolatry, appears to have had good ground under the 
Judges. The rigorous, and what would now be called cruel, pro- 
ceeding, of slaying man, woman, and child, and everything that had 
life, was right in the eyes of omniscience, and must therefore be 
exempted from the censure of man till he knows all the reasons that 
rendered it a wise step for the accomplishment of Jehovah's gracious 
purposes towards the ancient church. Some of the reasons are ob- 
vious enough, and go far to justify it even to our limited apprehen- 
sion. Others are mysterious. Meanwhile, it is unfair to say merely 
that they took possession of the land by the right of conquest or the 
right of the strongest; or that it was enjoined by political and reli- 
gious considerations. It was the express will of God that the 
Hebrews should conquer and slay ; and, " shall not the Judge of all 
the earth do right?" 

The Samaritans have two books bearing the name of Joshua. One 
is a chronicle written in the Arabic language, in Samaritan cha- 
racters, containing a history of Joshua, partly corresponding with 
our Hebrew book, partly altered for the purposes of the Samaritans. 
Joshua is called the first king of the Samaritans, and is said to have 
built the temple on Mount Gerizim. Many legends and fables are 
interwoven with it. Popular sayings, dressed out with Jewish and 
Mohammedan Hagadas, are inserted. The history is brought down 
to the time of Theodosius the Great, and was written in the thirteenth 



646 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

century. A MS. received by Scaliger from Samaritans in Egypt 
in 1584, gave Europeans the first knowledge of the book; and from 
this MS. Juynboll has published it with a Latin version and remarks, 
to which the learned orientalist has prefixed a dissertation (Leyden, 
1848, 4to.). 

From this is to be distinguished a book of Joshua written in the 
Samaritan dialect, which reproduces the contents of the Hebrew 
Joshua in a free version and in a way corresponding to the peculiar 
dogmas of the Samaritans. It constitutes but a small part (chap, 
ix.— xxv.) of the preceding chronicle, and was composed by a Sama- 
ritan living in Egypt out of the Septuagint version of the Hebrew 
Joshua, and a treatise occupied with the history of the Hebrews 
under Moses and Joshua, mentioned by Aristobulus. 



CHAP. III. 



The book of Judges derives its name from the fact of its containing 
the history of the Israelites from the death of Joshua till the time 
of Eli, under the administration of persons called Judges, whom God 
raised up on special occasions to deliver his people from oppression, 
and furnished both with extraordinary strength and courage for sub- 
duing their enemies. These leaders were styled h^W, Judges, itpnal in 
LXX., men who vindicated the rights belonging to the chosen people 
against their oppressors, obtaining them by force and fortitude. 

The exact number of such persons is not easily ascertained. Ber- 
theau 1 and Ewald 2 endeavour to educe the number twelve, because 
it was a leading and important one ; but their method of proceeding 
is arbitrary. The true number was either thirteen or fourteen ac- 
cording as Abimelech is included or not. With him the list will 
stand thus: 1. Othniel, 2. Ehud, 3. Shamgar, 4. Deborah and Barak. 
5. Gideon, 6. Abimelech, 7. Tola, 8. Jair, 9. Jephthah, 10. Ibzan, 
11. Elon, 12. Abdon, 13. Samson. The accounts given of six are 
copious ; of the rest very brief. 

The book consists of two parts, viz, 1. The history itself of the 
oppressions of the Israelites and their deliverances under the Judges, 
(i. — xvi.) 2. An appendix narrating two events, the idolatry of the 
Danites (xvii. xviii.) and the extermination of the tribe of Benjamin 
(xx. xxi.). (xvii. — xxi.) The most conspicuous judges are Deborah 
(iv.), Gideon (vi.), Jephthah (xi.), Samson (xiii. — xvi.). In the first 
narrative belonging to the appendix, Micah, a wealthy man dwelling 
in Mount Ephrahn, had a house of gods in which he worshipped, 
having engaged an itinerant Levite to act as his priest and settle in 
his family. But the Danites seized the images, took the priest along 
with them, and established idolatry at Laish, which they conquered. 
The second narrative gives an account of a brutal outrage committed 
by the Benjamites of Gibeah against the family of a Levite dwelling 
on the side of Mount Ephrahn, followed by a bloody civil war, in 

1 Das Bnch der Eichtcr, pp. 53, 54. 

2 Geschichtc des Volkes Israel, vol. ii. p. 363. el seqq. 



On the Book of Judges. 647 

which all the tribes joined against Benjamin and nearly exter- 
minated it. 

The leading object of the writer is apparent from ii. 11 — 23. His 
design was to show that the calamities to Avhich the Israelites had 
been exposed after Joshua's death were owing to their apostasy 
from Jehovah and their idolatry. When the covenant people forsook 
the Lord they were deservedly punished ; but when they repented 
and returned to their allegiance, He delivered them out of the hands 
of their enemies by judges whom He raised up. Hence it was not 
his object to give a connected and complete history of the Israelites 
in the interval between Joshua and the Kings. 

There has been some difference of opinion as to the extent of the 
introduction belonging to the first division; for while De Wette 
makes it reach to ii. 5., Bertheau carries it on to ii. 10., and Keil to 
iii. 6. The last seems to be the most appropriate. If it be adopted, 
we may perceive in the introduction two sections running parallel 
to one another, the first sketching the political relation of the Isra- 
elites to the Canaanites who remained in the land (i. 1 — ii. 5.); the 
second the religious position of Israel with respect to Jehovah, and 
Jehovah's procedure towards Israel (ii. 6 — iii. 6.). 

The unity of the book has been variously regarded. Some have 
endeavoured to split up the different divisions into single parts, for 
the purpose of showing that there is no real or consistent unity in 
them. Others have tried to show want of connection in the intro- 
duction, body, and appendix of the book. On the other hand, several 
critics have contended for one author of the whole, who is consistent 
with himself throughout. In minute points like these, there is much 
room for subjectivity. It appears to us that no good argument can 
be advanced for assigning a different authorship to the introduction 
(i. — iii. 6.) or any part of it, as the first chapter ; and to the body of 
the work. Nor do contradictions exist in the introduction itself, as 
various critics suppose. There is no real discrepancy between i. 8. 
and i. 21. ; for the statement of the former, that the children of Judah 
took Jerusalem and set it on fire does not imply the taking of the 
fortress of Jebus on Mount Zion ; nor does it exclude the fact of the 
subsequent rebuilding of the city and dispersion of the Jebusites 
throughout it, in consequence of which the Benjamites could not 
drive them out. The conquest spoken of in the eighth verse is a 
partial one, as is shown by the 21st verse. 1 In like manner there 
is no opposition between the statement in i. 18., that Judah took 
Gaza, Askelon, and Ekron, and that five lords of the Philistines 
remained (iii. 3.) ; since it is not necessarily implied in the former 
passage that they had been slain. 2 It is equally unsuccessful in 
Bertheau to represent i. — ii. 5. and ii. 11 — iii. 6. as disagreeing with 
one another by saying that the former makes the Canaanites to have 
been left without extermination because the Israelites preferred to 
live with them, instead of destroying them agreeably to the stringent 

1 See Welte in Herbst's Einleitung, ii. p. 126., and Havcrnick, ii. 1 p. 72. 

2 Havernick, Einleit. ii. i. p. 74. 

T T 4 



648 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

command they had received ; while the latter puts the matter in such 
a light as to show that the Israelites were not allowed to destroy 
them because they themselves had fallen into idolatry, so that their 
living together with them was a punishment 1 ; for the critic has 
overlooked such places as ii. 20. &c, as well as ii. 2, 3., where it is 
said that God would not drive them out because the people had 
transgressed His covenant. 

The unity of iii. 7 — xvi. 31. can -scarcely be called in question. 
And we cannot believe that the first chapter can well be separated 
from it, much less ii. — iii. 6. That chapter may have been prefixed 
by a later hand, as Studer 2 supposes; or belong to xvii. — xxi., as 
Ewald 3 thinks; but it is unlikely that the book stood originally 
without it. We are willing, therefore, to allow it to remain as an 
original and integral part of i. — xvi. 

But though holding the essential unity of the first part of Judges, 
extending to the end of the sixteenth chapter, we must separate the 
appendix, xvii. — xxi., assigning it to another and later writer. Almost 
all modern critics agree in this view. He who wrote the first six- 
teen chapters did not write the remainder. This is inferred from 
the different point of view which the appendix-writer takes. It is 
untheocratic. He speaks of there being no king in Israel, but of 
every man doing what was right in his own eyes (chapters xvii. 6., 
xviii. 1., xix. 1., xxi. 25.); phraseology that never appears in the 
first division. The difference of contents belonging to the two divi- 
sions will not explain this peculiarity, though Keil asserts it does. 
The style too is different. Words and phrases occur in the appendix 
different from those in the preceding portion. Several of these 
peculiarities belong to a later diction, as the Hebrew original of 
they took them wives (xxi. 23.) D^J K^J, and others. 4 We are aware 
that Keil adduces the linguistic peculiarities of the appendix as a 
proof of unity, comparing them with similar phenomena in the earlier 
portion, and trying to explain away the differences of style by re- 
solving them into rare words and such as occur but once, in which 
he declares the entire book to be rich ; but he seems to us quite in 
error. 5 The phenomena make a perceptible distinction between the 
two portions, so that they cannot belong to the same author. 

There is a considerable diversity of opinion as to the person who 
wrote the first sixteen chapters. Phinehas, Joshua, Hezekiah, Jere- 
miah, Ezekiel, Samuel, Ezra, have been mentioned. Of these conjec- 
tures, for they can scarcely be called by any other appellation, the only 
ones that deserve a moment's consideration are Joshua, Samuel, and 
Ezra. It is apparent that the chapters were not written by Joshua or 
the compiler of the book bearing his name, from the different method of 
narration pursued, as well as from the difference of style. Nor is it pro- 
bable that Samuel wrote them, as the Talmudists conjecture, followed 

1 Das Buch der Richter, u. s. w. Einleit. p. xv. 

- Das Buch der Richter gramm. und histor. erkliirt, u. s. w p. 435. 

a Geschichte, u. s. w. vol. i. pp. 190, 191. 

* See Stahelin, Untersuchungen ueber d. Pentateuch, u. s. av. p. 148. 

5 Einleit. pp. 182, 183. 



On the Book of Judges. 649 

by Jahn l and by Paulus. 2 Nor can it have been written by Ezra, 
since the manner, style, and phraseology are unlike the book that 
goes by his name. Had Ezra composed the history, it would have 
been more complete; and the orthography of his age must have ap- 
peared in it. 

The authorship, age, and sources of the entire book are so inti- 
mately connected that they cannot be discussed apart. Various 
phrases have a bearing on the question of time. Thus the phraseo- 
logy in i. 21. "the Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin 
in Jerusalem unto this day," implies that it was composed before 
the subjugation of the fortress of Zion and the expulsion of the 
Jebusites by David. ^2 Sam. v. 6. &c.) In xiii. 1. the duration of 
the period in which the Philistines oppressed the Israelites is 
given ; whence we infer that it was not written before the sub- 
jugation of the Philistines by Samuel. (1 Sam. vii. 1 — 14.) The 
formula unto this day in vi. 24., x. 4., xv. 19. compared with xi. 39., 
leads to the idea of a time considerably posterior to the events 
narrated. Hence the time of the kings suggests itself as the most 
likely for the substance of the book, at least, to have originated 
in. In the appendix we find such phrases as in those days there icas 
no king in Israel, (xvii. 6.,xviii. l.,xix. l.,xxi. 25.) In xviii. 30. we 
read, " until the day of the captivity of the land," phraseology whose 
meaning has been debated. The most obvious interpretation is that 
it refers to the Babylonian captivity, or at least to the deportation 
of Israel by Shalmaneser and Esarhaddon. Such is the opinion of 
Le Clerc, Eichhorn, Studer, Rosenmliller, and others. On the con- 
trary, it has been thought by Hengstenberg, Havernick, and Welte 
that the words refer to the carrying off the ark of the covenant by 
the Philistines ; by Keil that the allusion is to some unknown occur- 
rence in the time of the judges. We believe that the expression 
always implies the deportation of the inhabitants of a country, and 
refers here to the carrying away of Israel by Shalmaneser and Esar- 
haddon. The following verse (31.) shows that when the author 
wrote the house of God was no longer at Shiloh but at Jerusalem, 
whither David had brought the ark. In this manner the writer of 
the appendix belongs to a compai-atively late period, after 721 B. C. 
Because it is said in xxi. 12. that Shiloh " is in the land of Canaan," 
in addition to which a topographical description of its site is given, it 
has been thought that the appendix-writer was not an Israelite but 
a foreigner. But in the first passage, Shiloh is opposed to Jabesh in 
Gilead, a town outside Canaan; and in the second, the site of a 
place in the neighbourhood of Shiloh, not of Shiloh itself, is described, 
where an annual feast was kept. To enable his readers to have a 
vivid idea of the festival and its locality, the author appended the 
topographical observation in question. It is not necessary therefore 
to infer that he was a foreigner. 

We do not believe that the authorship of the work itself can be 
brought down so late as that of the appendix. All the notices relat- 

" ] Einlcit. ii. 1. p. 190 - Exeget. Conscrvatoiium, ii. p. 183. 



650 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

ing to time which it contains, its style and diction, its living fresh- 
ness and originality, agree best with the time of the kings — with 
the reigns of Asa or Jehoshaphat, according to St'ahelin and Ewald. 

Did the appendix-writer, then, make up the body of the work, put- 
ting together its different parts in the form it now has and then sub- 
joining his own portion ; or did he merely find it as it now exists, 
and complete it by the addition of his appendix ? Before answering 
these questions let us look at the composition of the first sixteen 
chapters. The book embraces a historical period of about 350 years ; 
and therefore the writer must either have derived his materials from 
written sources, or from oral tradition, or both together. It is vain 
for Havernick to argue against the probability of written sources 
being used. The historical precision and fulness, the characteristic 
and original features which enter into the detailed accounts of indi- 
vidual judges, point to written documents ; though we do not deny 
that tradition was sometimes followed. It is impossible at this time 
to discover the separate sources employed by the writer. All that 
can be said is, that several indications of written documents appear 
here and there. Thus the song of Deborah in the fifth chapter, 
which presents various diversities from what is related before it ; the 
parable of Jotham, ix. 8 — 15. ; the beginning of Samson's triumphal 
poem xv. 16. ; were derived from authentic documents. It is need- 
less to speculate about the nature or number of the documents em- 
ployed, as all such hypotheses must be merely subjective. Those 
who wish to see what critics have thought should consult Studer, 
Ewald, and Bertheau. 

Did the appendix-writer then compose the whole book, compiling 
it out of written documents and in part from tradition, so that it was 
not published, so to speak, till his own division appeared ? We be- 
lieve not. Had this been the fact, more traces of the appendix- 
writer would have appeared in the first portion. The diction, style, 
manner of narration, and other peculiarities, would not have been so 
separable from his own division as they now are. The author of 
i. — xvi. probably lived about 200 years earlier than the writer of 
xvii. — xxi. The former part, constituting the body of the work 
itself, was circulated before the latter was written. 

The chronology of the book of Judges is beset with many diffi- 
culties. It is impossible to fix the date of particular events, as 
there are intervals of time the extent of which is not specified, and 
as it is likely that some judges, usually reckoned successive, were 
contemporary, ruling over different districts. 

Most of the older theologians indulged in arbitrary combinations 
for the purpose of producing conformity between the chronological 
accounts of Judges, and the date in 1 Kings vi. 1., i. e. 480 years 
from the exode to the foundation of Solomon's temple. "We have 
no sympathy with the attempts that have been made to show that 
the date 480 did not exist in 1 Kings vi. 1. till centuries after Christ; 
and therefore that it cannot be original. No sufficient reason has 
been assigned for its spuriousness, or for altering it into 440 or 592. 
Neither the Septuagint, nor Josephus, nor the passage in Acts xiii. 



On the Book of Judges. 651 

20.., where the true reading has not been attended to, justifies the 
suspicions entertained against the number in the Hebrew Bible. 

Bertheau and Ewald proceed in another mode to subvert the his- 
torical nature of the chronological dates contained in Judges, as well 
as the 480 years in 1 Kings. But their assumed combinations are 
artificial, and not always consistent with the text. Had there been 
only twelve judges, greater plausibility would have attached to the 
twelve intervals of time they take, of forty years each. 

More probable and ingenious is the attempt to settle the chro- 
nology of the Judges made by Keil. 1 Unlike his predecessors, 
he proceeds on the supposition that the chronological data of the 
book rest upon true, historical tradition, and that 480 in 1 Kings is 
correct. From the invasion of Cushan-rishathaim to Jair (Judg. iii. 
— x.), he thinks that the chronology is successive. From that onward 
he reckons synchronistically, because, according to x. 7., the incursion 
of the Ammonites into the land of Israel from the east occurred at 
the same time with the oppression of the Israelites by the Philistines 
from the west ; so that both the Ammonite oppression of eighteen 
years' duration, and the years of the judges Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, 
and Abdon (x. 8., xii. 7 — 14.), come into the forty years of Phi- 
listine subjugation (xiii. 1.), during which Samson began for twenty 
years to deliver Israel out of the hand of the Philistines (xiii. 5. comp. 
with xv. 20., xvi. 31.), though Samuel first effected the deliverance 
(1 Sam. vii. 1 — 14.). But we must refer the reader to the essay 
itself of Keil. Full satisfaction on the subject cannot be obtained ; 
for it is needless to deny the fact, that some of Keil's positions are 
vulnerable. In truth, sufficient data are wanting towards a complete 
settlement of the chronology. Nothing but general views can be 
attained; and it is wiser perhaps, with De TVette and others, to 
abandon the task as all but hopeless. 

The book before us presents a lively picture of a rude, unsettled 
nation. It shows how repeated apostasy from the service of the true 
God brought as its punishment subjugation and disaster; and how, on 
the repentance of the people, Jehovah sent them the means of deli- 
verance. Its descriptions are natural and graphic. They are patri- 
archal and picturesque. In them we behold at once the justice and 
mercy of God ; the effects of true religion and of superstition in the 
history of the Israelites. The stamp of historical truth is impressed 
on every page ; for nothing can be more natural than the account given 
of the political relations and civil customs of the people at the period 
when the events recorded took place. Yet modern scepticism has dis- 
covered mythological and marvellous features in the book that savour 
of exaggeration. The effect of a magnifying and wonder-loving tra- 
dition, as well as a theocratic spirit foreign to the time, have been 
found in it. Thus the exploits of its heroes are referred to as 
incredible. It is true that their deeds are sometimes brilliant ; but 
they will probably be found within the range of rational belief. 
When it is stated that Shamgar sleio 600 Philistines, we are only to 

1 In the Dorpat Theolog. Beitrage, ii. p. 303. et seqq. 



652 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

suppose that he and his men did so ; the leader alone being mentioned 
as the representative of all. In relation to the exploits of Samson, 
there is nothing incredible, for history gives similar examples of 
men of extraordinary strength. Such unusual feats as he performed 
require indeed uncommon power and fortitude : but men capable 
of them appear now and again. Whether the deeds of Samson were 
supernatural or not, it is difficult to tell. The Scripture does not 
allege that they were so. The case is doubtful. Those who think 
that they necessarily exceed human power must resort to that expla- 
nation of them. That they were fabulous cannot be entertained for 
a moment. The history of Goliath of Gath is an analogous instance 
of one endowed with extraordinary strength. The entire tone of the 
book leads us to the conclusion that the history is impartially given. 
The people are described in no apologetic strain. Their character is 
drawn just as we should expect it to be in those times and amid such 
influences. Assassination, sanguinary cruelty, and the most terrible 
crimes, are related without blame being attached to the perpetrators. 
Martial law appears — wild, rough, cruel. The spirit of the period is 
faithfully reflected — a period characterised by war and want of civili- 
sation. Among the many internal proofs of the genuineness and fide- 
lity of the history contained in the book, we would refer particularly 
to the account of Jephthah, who vows inconsiderately, that if he should 
return conqueror of the Ammonites he would offer up whatever 
should first come forth out of the door of his house to meet him ; in 
consequence of which his only daughter is immolated by a cruel 
father, acting contrary to the Mosaic law which forbids human vic- 
tims. Surely this cannot be a fiction. 

In addition to internal proofs of the authenticity of our book, 
its authority is amply supported by external evidence. It was 
published at a time when most, if not all, the events related were 
generally known ; and their veracity could be tested by the original 
documents or registers whence they were taken. Its narratives are 
confirmed by references in the books of Samuel (comp. Judg. iv. 2„, 
vi. 14., xi. with 1 Sam. xii. 9 — 12. ; Judg. ix. 53. with 2 Sam. xi. 
21.); Psalms (comp. lxxxiii. 11. with Judg. vii. 25.; especially lxviii. 
8, 9., xcvii. 5., with Judg. v. 4, 5., where verses are borrowed). The 
New Testament also alludes to the book. (Comp. Acts xiii. 20. ; Heb. 
xi. 32.) It has also been supposed that traces of the events re- 
lated in Judges may be found in the Vulpinaria, a feast celebrated by 
the Romans, at which they let loose foxes with torches fastened to 
their tails ; in the story of Nisus's hair, of the golden hair given by 
Neptune to his grandson which rendered him invincible while uncut, 
of Hercules and Omphale, of the pillars of Hercules, of Agamemnon 
and Iphigenia, and of the Sabine rape. The originals of all these are 
probably found in this book. 



CHAP. V. 

RUTH. 



The book of Ruth in the old Jewish canon was not counted sepa- 
rately, but being connected with Judges formed with it only one 



On the Book of Ruth. 653 

book. The modern Jews separate it, and make it the second of the 
five Megilloth. It is publicly read by them on the feast of weeks, 
because it speaks of the harvest, the first fruits of which were pre- 
sented to God on that festival. In the Septuagint version the book 
was separated and put between Judges and Samuel, because the 
transactions it contains happened in the time of the Judges ; and also 
because it forms an appropriate introduction to the books of Samuel, 
supplying their deficiency in regard to definite notices of the an- 
cestors of David's family. The name is derived from Ruth, a Moab- 
itess, who having lost her husband by death, proceeds with her 
mother-in-law to Bethlehem, where she lives a blameless life of po- 
verty, and becomes the wife of a relation named Boaz, through whom 
she is an ancestor of David. 

The book consists of four chapters, containing three sections. 

I. An account of Naomi from her going into Moab with her 
husband Elimelek, to her return to the land of Israel with her 
daughter-in-law Ruth. (chap, i.) 

II. Boaz's interview with Ruth, and their marriage, (ii. iii. iv. 
1-12.) 

III. The birth of Obed, the son of Boaz by Ruth, from whom 
David was descended, (iv. 13 — 18.) 

The genealogy in iv. 18 — 22. is incomplete. From Phares son of 
Judas to David, a period of about 850 years, only ten members are 
given. Eichhorn ' and Rosenmiiller 2 suppose that the peculiarity in 
question owed its existence to the gaps found in the registers whence 
the genealogy was taken. This, however, is improbable. The solution 
of the difficulty proposed by Ussher is still more unlikely, viz., that 
the ancestors of David, as persons of preeminent piety, were favoured 
with extraordinary longevity. We believe that among the progeni- 
tors of David the leading persons alone are mentioned, the rest being 
purposely omitted. This was not an unusual thing. 

It is impossible to determine the date of the history more par- 
ticulai-ly than the period of the Judges, about a hundred years before 
David. Josephus puts the occurrences into the time of Eli, after 
Samson's death, led away by untenable chronological combinations. 3 
As the famine which caused Elimelek to leave his country is not 
mentioned in the book of Judges, no datum exists for determining 
the chronology. It is true that Bishop Patrick 4 and Hengstenberg 5 
have brought the famine spoken of at the beginning of Ruth into 
connection with the wasting of the land by the Midianites in the 
time of Gideon (Judg. vi. 3 — 6.) ; but the Midianitish invasion took 
place 175 years before the commencement of David's reign; whereas 
Boaz and Ruth were not married till about 100 years before David. 
Where all is uncertain, it is useless to speculate about the exact 
time, or to detail the conjectures of others. 

The author of the book and the age he belonged to are not easily 
ascertained. Most of the Jews assign the composition of it to the 

1 Einleitung in das alte Testament, vol. iii. p. 462. 2 Scholia, p. 490. 

3 Antiqq. v. 9. 1. * On Ruth, i. 1. 

5 Authentie d. Pentat. vol. ii. p. 111. 



654 Introduction to the Old Testament, 

same person who wrote the Judges, i. e. Samuel, as they imagine. 
Others have ascribed it to Hezekiah, or Ezra. If we judge by pe- 
culiarities of diction and style, the authorship of Judges and Ruth 
cannot be identical. Hezekiah and Ezra are conjecturally assigned, 
without reason. 

There is internal evidence that it was written at a time con- 
siderably remote from the events it records. Thus in iv. 7., a certain 
custom is explained, " the manner informer time in Israel, concern- 
ing redeeming and concerning changing." (Comp. Deut. xxv. 9.) The 
continuation of the genealogy to David shows that his house had 
been established upon the throne. Accordingly, some think that the 
book belongs to the last years of David, or not long after his reign. 
So Keil l very recently. But there are certain Chaldaisms and pe- 
culiarities of diction that bring it down later than he supposes — later 
than the time when the books of Samuel were written, though there is 
some similarity between the language of them and that of Ruth. The 
Chaldaising diction cannot be denied, as Havernick and Keil attempt 
to do ; for it is groundless hypothesis to resolve it into the remnant 
of older forms in the language and the diction of vulgar life. 2 But 
though the diction betrays its later character by a Chaldaic colouring, 
we cannot, with Ewald and Bertheau, bring down the composition 
of the book to the time of the Babylonish captivity. It is true that 
the former discovers an acquaintance on the part of the writer with 
the book of Job (comp. i. 20. with Job. xxvii. 2. *3#, abbreviated 
from »3# ?x), a circumstance favourable to the time assigned; but the 
supposed reference is highly precarious. Marriage with foreign 
women was still permitted when it was composed. No apologetic in- 
timation occurs. Ruth's extraction gave no offence. On the con- 
trary, marriage with a Moabitess was regarded as highly objectionable 
about the time of the exile. (Ezra ix. 1. &c. ; Neh. xiii. 1 — 3., 23 — • 
27.) Ewald conjectures 3 that the book originally belonged to a 
larger whole composed of a series of similar pieces by the same 
author, and that it was taken by the final editor of Samuel and the 
Kings and put into the place it now occupies. There is no historical 
basis for such an hypothesis, though it is adopted in part by Bertheau. 

The scope of the book is to set forth the origin of David his- 
torically and genealogically, showing how a heathen, belonging to a 
people so hostile to the theocracy as the Moabites, was honoured to 
be the progenitor of the great and pious King David, because she 
placed unlimited trust in the Lord, and sought protection from the 
God of Israel. It had thus a specific moral design. Whether it was 
meant, as some suppose, to preintimate, by the recorded adoption of a 
Gentile woman into the family whence Christ was to derive his 
origin, the final reception of the Gentiles into the Christian church, 
w T e cannot tell. The writer can scarcely have entertained this 
exalted notion; though the Deity probably intended that the history 
should teach it to the most far-seeing and spiritual. It is incorrectly 

1 Einleitung, u. s. w. p. 471. 2 See Bertheau, Das Buch Ruth, p. 237. 

8 Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. p. 203. 



On the Tico Books of Samuel. 655 

assumed by Bertholdt x and Benary 2 , that it was designed to re- 
commend the duty of a man to marry his kinswoman. And it is 
wholly wrong to regard the history, with Bertholdt, as pure fiction, 
for which the circumstances alleged are nugatory, proceeding from 
misconception. Everything combines to show that the book gives a 
plain and true history. We admit that considerable skill appears in 
the plan and manner. The simplicity and naturalness characteristic 
of the book are the result of some elaboration. The tone is idyllic 
and almost poetical. Yet we can hardly allow to Bertheau that the 
book contains learned investigation and artificiality in the disposal 
and presentation of the materials. The picture given of domestic 
life is attractive and graphic, not merely or chiefly because of the 
writer's ability to place his theme in so good a light, but because he 
narrates an episode of domestic life beautiful in itself, which had 
really happened. The canonical authority of the book has never 
been questioned ; and we must protest against the idea of converting 
the historical narrative it contains into an idyllic or poetical fiction. 
The materials of which it is composed are real history, set forth in 
animated colours by the inspired writer. 



CHAP. VI. 

THE TWO BOOKS OF SAMUEL. 

The two books of Samuel were anciently reckoned as one among 
the Jews, the book of Samuel. The division into two is derived from 
the Septuagint and Vulgate, in which they are called the first and 
second books of the kingdoms or of Kings. Daniel Bomberg's Hebrew 
Bibles followed the separation ; and therefore it appears in the Bibles 
of the present day. They bear the name of Samuel, not because he 
was the author, but in relation to the contents, since he was the most 
prominent person in the history of the period which they embrace. 
Even in the reigns of Saul and David, whom he anointed, he exerted 
an important influence upon the national affairs. Hence the title is 
a potiori. Perhaps, however, the opinion prevalent among the Jews 
that Samuel wrote part of the books had something to do with the 
appellation, though we are unable to say whether it gave rise to it in 
the first instance, or merely confirmed its use after it had originated 
from another cause. The Talmudists unquestionably held that the 
first twenty-four chapters of the first book were composed by the 
prophet himself. 

Although the history of the theocracy commences with Eli's 
priesthood, yet it is only resumed at the place where it is broken off 
in the book of Judges, in the time of the Philistine domination, and 
continued to the end of David's reign. The narrative, therefore, of 
Eli's judicature serves as an introduction to the history of Samuel, 
setting forth in a strong light his choice as a true prophet. The 
whole consists of three large sections. I. The restoration of the 
sunken theocracy and its administration by Samuel, (i. — vii.) II. The 
history of Saul's kingdom from the beginning of his reign till his 

1 Einleitung, vol. v. p. 2357. z De Hebrseorum leviratu, p. 30. 



65Q Introduction to the Old Testament. 

death, (viii. — xxxi.) III. The history of David's reign. (2 Sam. i. — 
xxiv.) Under the first section we have the following subdivisions. 

1. Samuel's birth, call, denunciations of Eli by the command of 
God, and establishment in the prophetic office, (i. — iii.) 

2. The death of Eli, loss of the ark and its restoration, Samuel's 
activity as judge and conqueror of the Philistines, (iv. — vii.) 

3. The Israelites' desire of a king, the anointing, choice, and in- 
auguration of Saul in the kingly office, with Samuel's parting address 
to the people, (viii; — xii.) These parts belong to the first section. 
Under the second we have, — 

4. The history of Saul's reign till the time of his rejection from 
the kingdom, comprehending his first attack on the Philistines and 
victory over them through Jonathan's valour (xiii. — xiv. 46.) ; his 
other wars and victories, his children and relations (xiv. 47 — 52.); his 
disobedience to God in the war against Amalek, and his rejection 

(xv.). 

5. The history of Saul from his rejection till his death, containing 
the anointing of David to be king, his playing before Saul, his 
victory over Goliath, and other relations to Saul and Jonathan (xvi. 
— xviii.); his flight from before the king (xix. — xxvii.) ; Saul's last 
undertakings and defeat in a war with the Philistines, with David's 
fortunes and victories during his stay in the territory of the Philis- 
tines (xxviii. — xxxi.). The second book, embracing the third section, 
may be subdivided as follows : — 

6. David's elevation to be king of Judah, including his lament 
over Saul and Jonathan's death (ch. i,) ; his return to the land of. 
Israel, and confirmation in the kingdom of Judah ; Ishbosheth's exalt- 
ation by Abner to the kingdom of Israel, and the struggle between 
the house of Saul and that of David (ii.); Abner's passing over to the 
side of David, Ishbosheth's murder, and David's anointing as king of 
Israel (iii. — v. 5.). 

7. David's increasing power and dominion, including the founding 
of a secure residence, ancl victory over the Philistines (v. 6 — 25.), the 
arrangement of the public worship of God and divine confirmation of 
his kingdom (vi. vii.), his victories over all external foes, his officers 
and servants (viii. ix.). 

8. The troubles of his reign, by his adultery with Uriah's wife 
(x. — xii.), by the misconduct of his sons, Amnon's incest, and Ab- 
salom's rebellion (xiii. — xix.), Sheba's insurrection (xx. ). 

9. The subsequent transactions of his reign, — famine, wars with the 
Philistines (xxi.), thanksgiving psalm and last words (xxii. — xxiii. 7.) ; 
list of his mighty men, and numbering of the people (xxiii. 8— xxiv.). 
The time occupied by the whole is 152 years. 

The scope of the work is to point out the development and progress 
of the theocracy from the end of the period in which the judges ruled 
till the close of David's reign, its deliverance from the deepest humi- 
liation under the Philistine yoke, and victorious elevation over all 
external enemies by the laudable exertions of Samuel and David, 
men endowed by God with his spirit, that they might be efficient in- 
struments in restoring an apostate people whom God nevertheless had 



On the Two Books of Samuel. 657 

chosen as his own, to their rightful allegiance, and educating them in 
their high duties of perpetual obedience to the King of Heaven. 
Though the government was changed from an aristocracy to a mon- 
archy, we see the preservation of the church of God amid all the 
vicissitudes of the Israelitish polity, together with signal instances of 
the divine mercy towards those who feared Jehovah, and of judg- 
ments inflicted on His enemies. The copious biographies of Samuel 
and David are fraught with instruction for the believers of every age. 
It is universally admitted, that the contents of these books were 
drawn from various Avritten sources. This indeed is manifest from 
internal evidence. The narrative is so extended, in most parts, that 
it approaches to the nature of a biography, though it is occasionally 
brief and chronicle-like. A compilatory character belongs to the 
composition ; the portions put together from different sources being 
but loosely connected. Instead of being skilfully and compactly 
dovetailed into one another, they are inexactly united. Many sections 
accordingly, occupy an isolated position, dissociated from those in 
their immediate neighbourhood. This feature of disunion has been 
represented in so strong a light by various critics as to present con- 
tradictions, which they accordingly allege to exist. Contradictory 
statements, they say, are found in the narrative ; showing that the 
compiler put together the documents with little consideration. It is 
also affirmed, that there are duplicate statements of the same events. 
These allegations must be particularly examined. They are denied 
and combated by Keil, who, however, goes too far in his view of the 
. connection subsisting between the various sections of which the books 
are composed. Let us advert to the phenomena adduced in support 
of the position advocated by so many critics, and the counter observa- 
tions of this recent writer. 

In justification of the compilatory and loosely connected nature of 
the narrative in many instances, we refer to the closing remarks of 
separate portions, which involve a summing up of what their authors 
knew respecting the persons whose history they wrote. Thus in 
1 Sam. vii. 15 — 17. a glance at the end of Samuel appears. Keil 
vainly endeavours to disprove this fact. 1 He is more successful in 
showing that the history of Saul's reign is not brought to a close at 
1 Sam. xiv. 52., as Thenius thinks. The narrative of Saul's rejection 
begins with xv., which is not inaptly preceded by a brief summary of 
his reign. At 2 Sam. viii. 15 — 18. Ave have the conclusion of a writ- 
ten document respecting the reign of David, which Keil fails to explain 
on any other hypothesis. The same remarks apply to xx. 23 — 26. 

Among contradictions, De Wette 2 and Thenius 3 adduce such as 
these : 1 Sam. vii. 13. and ix. 16., x. 5., xiii. 3. 19, 20. But the dis- 
crepancy is only apparent, because it is not said in the former place 
that Samuel utterly subdued the Philistines, and prevented them 
from coming into the coast of Israel ever after. They may, for aught 
that is said to the contrary, have invaded Israel twenty years after, 
and oppressed them. 

1 Einleitung, p. 192. "- Einleitung, § 179. p. 247. et seqq. 

3 Die Biicher Samuels, Einleit. p. svi. 
VOL. II. IT U 



658 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

In the history of Saul, xiii. 8. refers back to x. 8., but is irrecon- 
cilable with xi. 14. &c. ; as also ix. 1 — x. 16., where Samuel anoints 
Saul in consequence of a divine intimation, disagrees with viii. x. 
17 — 27., where he was chosen by lot in consequence of the people's 
demand. Here also there is no real contradiction. God may have 
intimated to Samuel to comply with the demands of the people that a 
king should be chosen, and also that Saul was the person who should 
be annointed as such, in perfect consistency with the election of him 
by lot ; the one being Saul's private, the other his public theocratic 
designation. Thenius 1 strives in vain to represent the two transac- 
tions as discordant, with weapons that would destroy the inspiration 
of prophets, and God's influence over the free actions of men. 

Again, there is said to be a contradiction between xi. 14, 15. and 
xiii. 8. compared with x. 8. In the last passage Samuel tells Saul to 
repair to Gilgal, and tarry there for seven days, till he should come to 
him and show him what to do ; whereas in xiii. 8., when he had tarried 
there seven days, Samuel did not come to the place, though in the in- 
tervening part, xi. 14, 15., it is related that Samuel, Saul, and the 
people had been at Gilgal. This conclusion rests mainly on the iden- 
tification of the seven days in xiii. 8. with those in x. 8., which Keil 
strongly denies, maintaining that there is no connection between the 
two. We confess, however, that it is most natural to regard them 
as the same, and to take the words of x. 8. as referring to the nearest 
future, not to something which was to take place many years after. 
Hence it is not unlikely that xiii. 2. &c. &c. immediately followed 
x. 16. in the original document, and that the two were afterwards 
separated by intervening matter now in chapter xi. Yet there is no 
real contradiction, for if the intervening materials be true and correct, 
as we have reason to believe, then they merely cause an apparent 
discrepancy by the position they occupy. The events are not nar- 
rated in their proper succession. 

In xiv. 47 — 52. we have a separate section, the original writer of 
which knew nothing of x. 17. &c, xi. 14. &c, xv. Though this is 
pretty obvious to any critical reader, Keil wholly objects. Omission 
does not necessarily involve contradiction ; neither does it here. 

1 Sam. xvi. 14 — 23. compared with chapter xvii. does not harmonise. 
Much has been written for the purpose of reconciling the particulars 
found in these records of David's introduction to Saul. Some have 
resorted to the hypothesis of interpolation, in which they are counte- 
nanced by the Cod. Vat. of the LXX. that leaves out twenty-five 
verses of the Hebrew text. Others again resort to transposition. We 
can only refer at present to what we have said in another place 2 , and 
to a brief enumeration of different views given by Keil. 3 We cannot 
say that either he or Welte 4 has succeeded better than their predeces- 
sors ; or that any satisfactory solution has been offered which does not 
allow of different documents in xvii. 55 — xviii. 5. and xvi. 14 — 23. 
Chapters xvi. and xvii. 1 — xviii. 5. originally proceeded from different 

1 Die Biicher Samuels, Einleit. p. xvi. 

2 Treatise on Biblical Criticism, vol. i. p. 397. et segq, 8 Einleitung, p. 196. 
* In Herbst's Einleit. ii. p. 160. 



On the Tico Books of Samuel. 659 

writers, and the compiler put the one after the other, because he ob- 
served that additional circumstances were given. He did not consider, 
nor was he solicitous about, their exact agreement when put in im- 
mediate juxtaposition, knowing that the circumstances were true. The 
discrepancy arises from our ignorance. The alleged contradiction to 
history or anachronism in xvii. 54., that David carried Goliath's head 
to Jerusalem, whereas he did not conquer Jerusalem till he himself 
was king (2 Sam. v. 6 — 9.), is opposed to what we learn from the 
books of Joshua and Judges (Josh. xv. 63. ; Judg. i. 21.), viz., that 
the city was inhabited by Israelites long before the fortress and upper 
part were wrested from the Jebusites by David. Nor is there any 
contradiction between xvii. 54. and xxi. 9., in which latter Goliath's 
sword is said to be found in the sanctuary of Nob, since the former 
does not say or imply that David always kept Goliath's armour in his 
tent. As little real discrepancy is there between xviii. 2. 5. and 
9, 10., though Thenius assumes it, for Saul eyed David with suspicion, 
not from the day of the latter's victory over Goliath, but from the 
time of his defeating the Philistines, as related in xviii. 6. &c, an 
occurrence separated from the former by an unknown interval of 
time. The two expressions N-inn pi'3 (verse 2.) that day, and D'VnD 
N-inn (verse 9.) from that day, should not be identified. 

Again, the number 100 in 2 Sam. iii. 14. is said by De "Wette to 
contradict that of 200 in 1 Sam. xviii. 27. But the discrepancy si 
only apparent. Saul demanded but 100, and therefore David mentions 
no more to Ishbosheth, wishing merely to insist upon the condition of 
Saul's demand having been literally performed, not on the circumstance 
that he had done twice as much as had been required. In like manner, 
the discrepancy between xix. 2. &c. and xx. 2. &c, shows no more 
than that the latter chapter did not proceed from the writer of the 
former one. Certainly the answer of Jonathan (xx. 2.), as well as the 
remark of David (verse 7.), appear inappropriate after what had taken 
place as related in xix. 2. &c, and David could scarcely think of 
being at the royal table, or Saul expect him there after what had oc- 
curred between them both. (Comp. xx. verses 5. &c. 26. &c.) Here 
again our ignorance prevents us from discovering a complete recon- 
ciliation of the accounts. The writer of the one chapter was not iden- 
tical with the author of the other, nor had they seen each other's 
documents. Keil strives very artificially to show a full agreement 
between them by the help of arbitrary assumptions. 

In chap. xxi. 10. &c, where David flees to Achish, but feigns mad- 
ness because he was suspected by the servants of that king, and 
xxiii. 1 — 5., where he marches against the Philistines, there is said to 
be a contradiction to xxvii. 2. &c, where he abode at Achish, and 
obtained Ziklag from him ; and to xxix. 1. &c, where the princes of 
the Philistines suspect him. This representation rests on the untenable 
assumption that the first flight of David to Achish is nothing more 
than a traditional duplicate of his second flight ; whereas the historical 
truth of xxi. 10. &c. is confirmed by Psal. xxxiv. 

Duplicate chronicles of one and the same event have been found by 
critics in various passages, contrary in most cases to all probability. 



660 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

There is no reason for making two different relations of the war 
against the Syrians out of 2 Sam. viii. and x. — xii., as Thenius himself 
allows. And surely it is not unlikely that Saul, on two different 
occasions, when a paroxysm of rage or madness seized him, threw his 
spear at David, which the latter as often successfully evaded (comp. 
1 Sam. xviii. 10. &c. with xix. 9. &c), since it is expressly mentioned 
that the consequences to David were very different. In like manner 
two different occurrences are spoken of in 1 Sam. xiii. 14. and xv. 26. 
&c, not one and the same. Saul twice disobeyed the command of 
Jehovah received through Samuel. His first transgression was fol- 
lowed by threatening, but was not punished with his immediate 
rejection. The second, which was less excusable, led at once to 
his rejection. The twofold mention of the proverb, " Is Saul also 
among the prophets ? " has been explained as if the first passage 
(1 Sam. x. 10 — 12.) gave the origin of it, while the second narrates 
a similar case by means of which the proverb, which was already in 
existence, was verified and confirmed anew. (1 Sam. xix. 24.) But 
this is an unsatisfactory explanation on the part of Keil. If the real 
source be given in x. 10 — 12., the words of the second passage na- 
turally refer to its source also, not to the reason of its national 
currency. Two incompatible reasons are assigned, the older of which 
is the preferable one. 

The twofold account of Samuel's death, 1 Sam. xxv. 1. and xxviii. 
3., arises from the fact of its being necessary, as an introductory ex- 
planation to the succeeding narrative, in the latter chapter. We 
believe, however, that the sections in which the accounts are found 
proceeded from different writers. 

The double Goliath mentioned in 1 Sam. xvii. 4. and 2 Sam. xxi. 
1 9. must arise from a corruption of the text in the latter place. The 
English version has rightly inserted brother of, which is confirmed by 
the parallel place in 1 Chron. xx. 5., and is admitted by Movers, 
Winer, and Thenius. 

It has been thought by Thenius, that in 1 Sam. xxvi. we have 
merely another account of what had been already narrated in xxiii. 
19 — xxiv. 23. Both agree for substance. And Saul must have been 
a monster of immorality not to have been so affected by the magna- 
nimity of David in sparing his life once, as to endeavour to kill the 
latter. But though there is much to favour the assumption of a 
duplicate chronicle, yet there are minor diversities in the narratives 
that lead us to hesitate in adopting the identity of the occurrences. 
Had Saul been an ordinary man instead of a king, we should not 
have felt so much reluctance, for David would scarcely have spared 
such an one twice in the circumstances described ; but as he was a 
king, and subject to fits of insane anger, as well as influenced by the 
foolish advice of those around him, we can see no improbability in 
David sparing his life twice through reverence for one who had been 
anointed king. 

On the whole, we believe that the supposed duplicate chronicles of 
the same events are very few, and that where they exist, they may be 
generally accounted for in other ways than by difference of original 



On the Two Boohs of Samuel. 661 

documents to which they belonged, or to tradition in connection with 
written sources. Yet all cannot be so explained. And in relation to 
contradictions, most of them are apparent rather than real. But even 
where they are so, they usually belong to different sources. Some 
are so intractable as to admit of no other solution than that they were 
derived from independent accounts which the compiler put together 
without solicitude about their exact coincidence. They cannot be 
reconciled at the present day, though they might perhaps be shown 
to agree, were we in possession of all the circumstances. Keil is de- 
cidedly wrong in contending for the close unity of the books; for no 
impartial critic can well deny that there is a compilatory looseness in 
many sections, an inexact disunion, which violates the compactness 
that would have proceeded from a thorough elaboration of his ma- 
terials. Where many things are so hard or rather impossible to be 
reconciled, it is preposterous to argue for close unity. But, on the 
other hand, Bertholdt, Gramberg, Graf, Stahelin, De Wette, and 
even Thenius, assume too much disunion and irreconcilableness, 
placing passages in opposition which do not disagree, finding con- 
tradictions where they have no existence, and connecting similar 
but diverse occurrences into one and the same narrated twice in 
consequence of the use of various sources by the compiler. Keil 
is at one extreme : these writers at the opposite. 

After observing the phenomena just adverted to, there is little use 
in referring with Keil to the language of the books in confirmation of 
their unity. It is tolerably uniform throughout, though peculiar ex- 
pressions are not wanting. But all this is perfectly consistent with 
the idea of independent sources having been employed, especially if 
they were written at times not far remote from one another. 

In regard to the author and age of the books of Samuel, some have 
thought that they and the books of Kings were written by one and 
the same person. This view, which is wholly untenable, found ad- 
vocates in Eichhorn, Jahn, and Herbst. But the reasons given for 
it cannot stand the test of criticism. The uniformity of plan and 
narration, of style and diction, supposed to pervade them, is all but 
imaginary. The theocratic spirit and tone is the same ; but in other 
respects they differ widely. The historical narrative is diffuse in the 
books of Samuel, especially in the biographies of Saul, Samuel, and 
David, showing that the materials at the author's disposal were 
abundant, and that he wished to make a copious use of them. But 
the author of the books of Kings furnishes nothing more than brief 
extracts from the history of the kings, referring at the close of a 
reign to the annals where it was given at greater length. In the 
Kings the chronology is accurately and minutely given ; whereas it is 
little attended to in the books of Samuel. The use of sources is 
carefully indicated in the former ; not in the latter, where no formal 
allusion to them occurs. In the former, references to the laws of 
Moses occur ; while in the latter none is to be found. The books of 
Kings contain not a few allusions to the exile, both in matters of fact 
and in expression ; whereas the books of Samuel are free from them. 
Besides, the language of the books of Samuel bears the impress of 

CU 3 



662 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

an earlier age than that of the books of Kings. It is free from the 
later and more Chaldaic forms which occur in the latter. 

Any attempt to ascertain the authorship of the books before us 
must be attended with great difficulty. It is said in 1 Chron. xxix. 
29. " Now the acts of David the king, first and last, behold, they are 
written in the book of Samuel the seer, and in the book of Nathan 
the prophet, and in the book of Gad the seer." In consequence of 
this passage, it was formerly supposed that the books of Samuel were 
written by Samuel himself, as far as the first twenty-four chapters ; 
the remainder by Gad and Nathan. But Havernick 1 has refuted 
the idea of the documents being identical with the present books of 
Samuel. According to the passage just quoted the chief source of 
David's history consisted of writings composed in the schools of the 
prophets. It has been incorrectly assumed that Samuel, Nathan, and 
Gad are designated as the writers, or that the documents contained 
their sayings (1 Chron. xxix. 29.), whereas *I31 i>$-1E>^ ^3? cannot 
mean this because of the immediately preceding in "n^n, which does 
not admit of that sense. The phrase in question denotes the trans- 
actions or occurrences of the time of Samuel, Gad, and Nathan, which 
is confirmed by 2 Chron. ix. 29. 2 The only source expressly men- 
tioned is in 2 Sam. i. 18., where David's pathetic elegy is mentioned 
as existing in the book of Jasher, which was a national song-book or 
j)oetic anthology. Perhaps other poetical pieces, as Hannah's song 
(1 Sam. ii. 1 — 10.), a short elegy on the death of Abner (2 Sam. hi. 
33, 34.), the prayer (2 Sam. vii. 18—29.), the last words of David 
(2 Sam. xxiii. 1—7.), the eighteenth Psalm (2 Sam. xxii.), the poem 
sung on David's return from the slaughter of Goliath, of which we 
have only the chorus (1 Sam. xviii. 7.), belonged to the same collec- 
tion of national poetry or hymns. Besides this Hebrew anthology, a 
second source consisted of documents composed in the schools of pro- 
phets, as we infer from 1 Chron. xxix. 29., and national annals or 
records. A third source is supposed by Thenius to lie in a document 
which contained a special history of the king himself, composed by 
one of David's official men (perhaps Ira of Jathir his secretary), aided 
by the prophet Nathan. 3 But there is no necessity for assuming the 
existence of a specific document of this nature. David's history was 
probably taken from the prophetic documents and national records. 
Instead of this third source we may assign another, viz., oral tra- 
dition and writings current among the people. 

In conformity with these sources we may distinguish sections which 
were composed by persons contemporary with the occurrences or 
soon after, and sections which originated at a later time out of oral 
tradition and some written pieces. The poetical pieces already speci- 
fied belong to the oldest sections, having been written by contempo- 
raries and inserted by them in the national anthology. The same re- 
mark applies to the account of David's heroes and their names, 2 Sam. 
xxi. 15 — 22., xxiii. 8 — 39. ; the conquest of Jerusalem, 2 Sam. v. 

1 Einleitung, ii. 1., pp. 122, 123. 

2 See Thenius, Die Buecher Samuels, Einleit. p. xxii. 8 Ibid. p. xxiii. 



On the Two Books of Samuel. 663 

1 — 10. ; and David's history, 2. Sam. xi. — xx. Thenius appropriately 
remarks 1 , that there is a hardness and peculiarity of expression be- 
longing to these sections, characteristic of their antiquity, while they 
present many critical difficulties, and frequent variations from the 
parallel text in Chronicles. After distinguishing the history of Saul, 
i. ix. x. xiii. xiv., Jonathan's covenant with David, xx., Nabal and 
Abigail, xxv., and the accounts of David's wars and victories, 2 Sam. 
viii. x. xi. 1. xii. 26 — 31., which he supposes to have been written 
some considerable time after the events, Thenius proceeds to specify 
the sections in which oral tradition was used wholly or in part. We 
confess, however, that w T e are unable to perceive any sufficient reason 
for making a distinction between the oldest, and older sections copied 
from written sources, and should put all the portions we have just 
enumerated in one class. What he makes A 1 and 2 we should 
simply represent as A. In like manner, we should demur to the dis- 
tribution of parts under what he terms B, or sections which ap- 
pear to have been composed later than A and for the most out of 
traditional unwritten materials. There his numbers 2 and 3 should 
be put together. Nothing more definite can be discovered respecting 
the writers of single sections. And with relation to the person who 
collected and put them together in their present form, all that can be 
affirmed with probability is, that he lived not long after David. 
Several remarks here and there proceeded from his pen, as 1 Sam. 
xxvii. 6. ; and probably he wrote most of what Thenius puts under B 
with the exception of a few written accounts which he had in com- 
posing these sections, i. e. in the history of Samuel, 1 Sam. i. — vii. ; in 
the history of David, 1 Sam. xiv. 52. xvii. xviii. 1 — 5. 15, 16. 20 — 
30. xix. xxi. 1 — 9. xxii. xxiii. 1 — 14. 19 — 27. xxiv. xxvii. xxviii. 
1, 2. xxix. xxx., 2 Sam. i. — iv. ix. 

After these observations it will not be needful to discuss particu- 
larly the various passages supposed to have an immediate bearing on 
the time of writing. Some explanation of expressions and manners 
belonging to the times of Samuel and David is found in 1 Sam. ix. 9., 
2 Sam. xiii. 18. In like manner the formula unto this day (1 Sam. v. 
5., vi. 18., xxx. 25., 2 Sam. iv. 3., vi. 8., xviii. 18.) implies some in- 
terval of time between what is related and the writer, although in 
other places (1 Sam. viii. 8., xii. 2., xxix. 3. 6. 8., 2 Sam. vii. 6., 
xix. 25.) it refers to things which continued from the past to the pre- 
sent time. A passage in 1 Sam. xxvii. 6. is more definite, " Ziklag 
pertaineth unto the kings of Judah unto this day," which clearly 
pi-esupposes the separation of the nation into the kingdoms of Judah 
and Israel. Havernick's attempt to show the opposite is fruitless. 2 
We cannot adopt his explanation of the passage, which is both arti- 
ficial and unnatural. It is true that the names of Israel and Judah 
were contrasted even in the time of David, of which there are exam- 
ples in 1 Sam. xi. 8., xviii. 16., 2 Sam. iii. 10., xxiv. 1. ; but the case 
before us is somewhat different. 3 Thenius rightly infers from 1 Sam. 

1 Thenius, Die Biicher Samuels, Einleit. p. xxi. 2 Einleit. ii. 1. p. 144. 

3 See Welte in Herbst's Einleit. ii. 151. note. 



664 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

xxvii. 6. that the compiler lived after -Rehoboam l , and this is all that 
can be ascertained respecting his age. The fact that David's death is 
not recorded proves nothing in favour of the writer living before or 
soon after its occurrence. On the whole, it seems to us probable that 
most of the sections had been written before the separation of Judah 
and Israel into two kingdoms, some contemporaneously with the 
events, others soon after; but that the writer or compiler of the 
whole lived after Rehoboam, perhaps under Abijah, Rehoboam 's son. 
It is less likely that he belonged to the time of Hezekiah, as Stahelin 
supposes. That he was a prophet cannot be shown ; though the pro- 
phetic, not the priestly or Levitical spirit, prevails in the books. 
Perhaps he was connected with a school of the prophets. The prin- 
cipal materials are prophetic. Yet we cannot make Nathan, the last 
of the prophetic triumvirate consisting of Samuel, Gad, Nathan, the 
editor or redactor of the work. 

With regard to the historical character of the books, it rests on 
sufficient evidence internal and external. Every impartial reader 
feels that the narrative bears the impress of truth. The biographical 
portraits are striking and natural, having a vividness like that pro- 
ceeding from an eyewitness. The delineation is artless, natural, 
lively ; the connection of the events probable and just. A historical 
tone predominates. Places, times, and minute sketches evince the 
hand of persons who were well acquainted with the facts related. 
What is recorded corresponds to the character of the times in which 
it happened ; while the stamp of life is impressed on the individuals 
who appear speaking and acting. It is true that the books contain 
miracles (2 Sam. xxiv. 15 — 17.) and prophecies (1 Sam. ii. 35., 2 
Sam. vii. xii. 11.), but these are essential points in the development 
of a theocracy. Contradictory statements have been adduced ; but 
many of them are not contradictions. Several of the older objections 
advanced by Hobbes, Spinoza, Simon, and Le Clerc were refuted by 
Carpzov; and of the modern, by Havernick and Keil. Granting 
that some remain, neither the inspiration of the redactor nor the 
credibility of the general history is ruinously affected. Discrepancies 
in minor matters of chronology and small points of history are of no 
moment. 

The books are sometimes quoted or referred to in the New Testa- 
ment, as 2 Sam. vii. 14. in Heb. i. 5. ; and 1 Sam. xiii. 14. in Acts 
xiii. 22. Allusions to them also occur in the Psalms, to which they 
furnish historical illustration in a variety of instances. Here, how- 
ever, much caution is needful — far more than the older writers 
applied when they assumed at once, as correct, the titles of the 
Psalms. Since De Wette's commentary on the Psalms, and espe- 
cially in consequence of Ewald's, critics have found far fewer illus- 
trations in the books of Samuel to throw light upon a number of 
Psalms. 

1 Die Biicher Samuels, u. s. w. Einleit. p. xxL 






On the Two Books of Kings. 665 

CHAP. VII. 

THE TWO BOOKS OF KINGS. 

The two books of Kings originally formed one undivided work 
among the Jewish Scriptures. The present division proceeded from 
the LXX. and Vulgate, as was the case with the books of Samuel. 
Daniel Bomberg first took it into his Hebrew Bibles. It appears 
from Origen that they derived their name from the initial words 
in P^Dl, now king David. The Septuagint terms the books simply 
fiacrtXsicov, of kingdoms, of which it calls Samuel the first and second ; 
and these two the third and fourth. The Vulgate entitles Liber 
regum tcrtius, secundum Hebraos primus Malachim, and Liber regum 
quartus, secundum Hebrceos secundus Malachim, i. e. the third and 
fourth book of Kings, according to the Hebrews the first and second 
books of Malachim. The books are so called from their contents, in- 
asmuch as they contain a history of the theocracy under the kings, 
from Solomon till the dissolution of the state. 
The history may be divided into three parts : — 

I. The reign of Solomon, (i. — xi.) 

II. The history of the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel, (xii. — 
2 Kings xvii.) 

III. The history of the kingdom of Judah after the breaking up 
of Israel, (xviii. — xxv.) 

These again may be subdivided into the following sections : — 

1. Solomon's accession to the throne and establishment in it. 
(ch. i. ii.) 

2. The glory of his reign, including his nuptials, his prayer, and 
sacrifice at Gibeon, his judicial wisdom (iii.), his court and state 
officers, his powers, magnificence, and wisdom (iv.), his preparations 
for building (v."), the building of the temple and royal palace (vi. vii.), 
the dedication of the temple and sublime prayer of the king (viii.), 
second appearance of God to him (ix. 1 — 9.), his other buildings and 
commerce by sea (ix. 10 — 28.), his great fame and revenues (x.), his 
falling into idolatry, with its consequences ; and his death, (xi.) 

The second period contains a synchronistic history of the divided 
kingdoms of Judah and Israel in three compartments. 

3. Origin of the division and hostile attitude of Israel and Judah 
towards each other, till the accession of Ahab. (xii. — xvi. 28.) 

4. The sovereignty of the house of Ahab in Israel, the worship of 
Baal, and resistance offered to it by Elijah and Elisha, alliance and 
affinity of the two royal houses, disastrous battles with the Syrians, 
extermination of the two kings, Joram of Israel and Ahaziah of 
Judah, by Jehu. (xvi. 29 — 2 Kings x.) 

5. History of the two kingdoms again in hostile attitude towards 
one another, from Jehu's accession to the throne in Israel and 
Athalia's usurpation of the throne in Judah, to the destruction of 
the kingdom of Israel in the 6th year of Hezekiah's reign. (2 Kings 
xi. — xvii.) 

The third general period does not conveniently admit of subdi- 



666 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

vision. It begins with the reign of Hezekiah, terminating with the 
taking of Jerusalem, the burning of the temple, and the transportation 
of the Jews as captives to Babylon, (xviii. — xxv.) 

The scope of the work is to exhibit the development of the theo- 
cracy agreeably to the principle set forth in the divine promise made 
to David in 2 Sam. vii. 12 — 16., showing how God, in fulfilment of 
it, preserved the kingdom of Solomon entire, and after it was divided 
endeavoured to recall both Israel and Judah to a sense of their 
covenant-relation to Him by admonitions and chastisements, though 
they were finally subverted, because they continued rebellious and 
stiff-necked. But though they were severely punished, God showed 
that he would not allow the seed of David to become extinct, bring- 
ing back the exiled king Jehoiachin to Judea, and elevating him 
again to kingly honours in his own land, as an evidence that he 
remembered his servant David and the promises made to him. Those 
who attribute a more particular scope than this to the books of Kings 
err in not taking a range sufficiently wide. Thus it is true that the 
aim is to present the history of the fallen country as an instructive 
example, full of warning; but this is a mere subordinate aim, not 
that of the whole. It is also true that the object of the writer was 
to encourage his fellow-exiles to a firm trust in God, and steadfast 
observance of his worship as the covenant-keeping Jehovah ; but this 
was not the leading object. On the contrary, the general aim of 
the whole is to describe the development of the theocracy in con- 
formity with the principle contained in that remarkable promise 
made to David — that David's seed should always occupy the throne, 
even amid punishments for sin and the sorest disasters, when the 
mercy of God, to outward appearance, might seem to have forsaken 
them utterly. De Wette dwells upon the prophetic-didactic tendency 
of the work as though the writer's principal design was to show the 
activity and influence of the prophets. But the copious notices both 
of the sayings and doings of the prophets appear for another reason; 
because that class occupied a conspicuous place in the theocracy as 
the instruments of God. They watched over the interests of the 
people with jealous care, checked royal usurpation and excesses, 
exerted judicial power as the representatives of Jehovah, and con- 
trolled all the affairs of the nation. Hence it was unavoidable in the 
writer to set forth their exertions in a prominent light, since their 
commission and influence were so extensive and powerful in the 
theocracy. At the same time, it is not improbable that the writer 
himself belonged to the prophetic order, or was in some way con- 
nected with it. 

Though the books were extracted to a considerable extent from 
more copious annals, they bear little of a compilatory character. 
The different sections are not put together loosely, so that one can 
clearly perceive their individuality and extent. The whole is per- 
vaded by a tolerable degree of unity and compactness. A definite 
plan may be seen, on which the writer composed the history. Hence 
there is a uniformity of method and style. The manner of narration, 
as well as the diction, has very much the impress of one writer. He 



On the Two Books of Kings. 661 

cites his sources for the most part in the same method, with certain 
fixed formulas, carefully notes the chronology on all important oc- 
casions, refers to the Mosaic law as the rule by which the actions of 
kings are judged, and describes every reign in the same manner, 
almost in the same phraseology. Hence, though the history be brief, 
it has a uniformity of representation and diction pointing to one 
writer. 

Deferring till afterwards our notice of the manner in which the 
author cites his sources, the following passages will show his charac- 
teristic carefulness in reckoning time, which he exhibits at first in 
round numbers, but subsequently more exactly: 1 Kings ii. 11., vi. 
1. 37, 38., vii. 1., viii. 2. 65, 66., ix. 10., xi. 42., xiv., 20, 21. 25., 
xv. 1, 2. 9, 10. 25. 33.,xvi. 8. 10. 15. 23. 29., xviii. 1., xxii. 1, 2. 41, 
42. 51. ; 2 Kings i. 17., iii. 1., viii. 16. 25., Lx. 29., x. 36., xi. 3, 4., 
xii. 1. 6., xiii. 1. 10., xiv. 1, 2. 17. 23., xv. 1, 2. 8. 13. 17. 23. 27. 

30. 32., xvi. 1., xvii. 1. 5., xviii. 1. 9. 13., xxi. 1. 19., xxii. 1. 3., xxiii.23. 

31. 36., xxiv. 1. 8. 12. 18., xxv. 1—3. 8. 25. 27. Keferences to the 
law are found in 1 Kings ii. 3., iii. 14., vi. 11. &c, viii. 58. 61., ix. 4. 
6., xi. 33. 38. ; 2 Kings x. 31., xi. 12., xiv. 6., xvii. 13. 15. 34. 37., 
xviii. 6., xxi. 8., xxii. 8., xxiii. 3. 21. 24. In like manner the be- 
ginning, character, and close of every reign, as well as the death and 
burial of the kings, are noticed very much alike by the writer, who 
speaks of them in a religious or theocratic aspect. Compare 1 Kings 
xi. 43., xiv. 20. 31., xv. 8. 24., xxii. 50.; 2 Kings viii. 24., xiii. 9., 
xiv. 29., xv. 7. 38., xvi. 20., xx. 21., xxi. 18., xxiv. 6. The kings of 
Judah are characterised individually, in 1 Kings xv. 3. 11., xxii. 43., 
2 Kings xii. 3., xiv. 3., xv. 3. 34., xviii. 3., xxi. 2. 20., xxii. 2., xxiii. 37., 
xxiv. 9. 19. ; the kings of Israel in 1 Kings xiv. 8., xv. 26. 30., xvi. 
19. 26. 30., xxii. 53., 2 Kings iii. 3., xi. 29. 31., xiii. 2. 11., xiv. 24., 
xv. 9. 18. 24. 28., xvii. 21. Expressions respecting the choice of 
the city of Jerusalem and the temple occur in 1 Kings viii. 16. 29., 
ix. 3., xi. 36., xiv. 21., 2 Kings xxi. 4. 7., xxiii. 27.; respecting de- 
votedness to Jehovah, 1 Kings viii. 61., xi. 4., xv. 3. 14., 2 Kings 
xx. 3. Uniformity of style is shown by the same forms of expression 
to denote the same thing : ex. gr. shut up and left, 1 Kings xiv. 
10., xxi. 21., 2 Kings ix. 8., xiv. 26. ; the frequent use of the par- 
ticle TN, then, 1 Kings iii. 16. &c. &c. ; sold oneself to work evil, 
1 Kings xxi. 20. 25., 2 Kings xvii. 17. 1 The use of later forms and 
expressions is also frequent, as in 1 Kings xi. 36. &c. &c. 2 

But notwithstanding the unity and independence of the work, as 
evinced by its whole manner, tone, and language, we are unable to 
assent to the affirmation of De Wette, viz. 3 that it is impossible to 
perceive clearly the juxtaposition or insertion of different narratives. 
On the contrary, various phenomena indicate the putting together 
of separate narratives or the employment of diverse materials, 
written or oral. Doubtless there is a general air of sameness 
arising from the freedom with which the author commonly uses his 
sources. He has unquestionably stamped upon them a character 

1 See Keil, Einleit. pp.210, 211. 

3 Comp. Stahelin, Kritische Untersuchungen, u. s. w. p. 150. et seqq. 

3 Einleitung, p. 258. 



668 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

of individuality. But that unity is not of such a kind as to prevent 
the critic from discovering unmistakeable traces of different docu- 
ments varying in their nature. Yet Thenius goes to excess in his 
endeavours to trace diversity ; and has therefore done injustice to the 
writer in making him for the most part a compiler and scarcely an 
independent author. 1 He was a compiler, but he was much more ; 
for he elaborated his sources freely : though we cannot deny that 
he has left traces of them which might have been removed by an 
ever-scrupulous and exact vigilance. As the case stands, they evi- 
dence his integrity and fidelity. 

Let us look at the few discordant statements, repetitions, and 
unsuitable intercalations which point unmistakeably, as some sup- 
pose, to original diversity of authorship. Thus Thenius finds a 
contradiction between 1 Kings ix. 22., where it is affirmed that 
Solomon made no bondmen of the children of Israel, and xi. 28., 
where the same monarch made Jeroboam ruler over all the charge 
(?3P) of the house of Joseph. Here there is no opposition, be- 
cause the words in the original on which the stress lies are dif- 
ferent, not identical or synonymous. Solomon did not make any 
of the children of Israel bond-slaves ; but he set them to heavy tasks. 
The term DO should not be confounded with ?3P. Another example 
is given by Thenius from 2 Kings ix. 26. compared with 1 Kings 
xxi. 19., where the place of punishment is different. In 1 Kings 
xxi. 19. it is prophesied that the dogs should lick Ahab's blood in 
the place where they licked the blood of Naboth, i. e. before the 
gates of Jezreel; whereas we find from xxii. 38. that it happened at 
Samaria. With the latter agrees also 2 Kings ix. 26., where Jehu ad- 
duces Elijah's prophecy respecting Ahab's extermination. In answer 
to this, Keil rejoins that in 2 Kings ix. 26. Jehu quotes the pro- 
phecy of Elijah respecting Ahab's overthrow merely according to 
the sense and not with verbal exactness, since the threatening was 
inflicted on Ahab only partially in consequence of his humiliation, 
but upon his son Joram fully. 2 This is unsatisfactory. Many other 
attempts have been made to bring the passages into harmony, but 
all have been unsuccessful. They may be seen in Thenius 3 , who 
properly rejects them as mere evasions of the difficulty. The dis- 
crepancy here remains unexplained, as far as we can perceive. In- 
direct discrepancies, as they are termed by Thenius, are found in the 
indication of relations which no longer existed after the overthrow 
of the Jewish state, described at the end of the work by means of 
the formula till this day. (1 Kings viii. 8., ix. 21., xii. 19. ; 2 Kings 
viii. 22.) But this fact only shows that a formula found in his 
sources by the writer was allowed to stand, as not liable to any 
serious misunderstanding. Again, things are related which do not 
correspond to remarks made before. So Thenius asserts, in- 
stancing the mention of Tirzah as Jeroboam's residence ; whereas in 
xii. 25., only Shechem and Penuel are spoken of as his places of re- 
sidence. 4 Here the discrepancy is not real, because it is not said 

1 See Die Biicher der Koenige, Einleitung, p. 11. 2 Keil's Einleitung, p. 212. 

3 Die Biicher der Koenige, p. 246. * Ibid. Einleit. p. xi. 



On the Tico Boohs of Kings. 669 

that Jeroboam resided at Penuel, nor that he changed his place of 
abode but once; nor in xv. 21. 33. that Baasha first chose Tirzah as 
his city of habitation. In 1 Kings xx. 13. 22. 28. 35., and xxii. 8. 
the same critic affirms that a number of prophets appear, implying 
that they dwelt unmolested in Samaria ; while according to xviii. 22. 
and xix. 10. 14. they were all destroyed except Elijah. Here again 
the discrepancy is more apparent than real. The premises are insuf- 
ficient to justify the conclusion that a great number of prophets still 
existed in Samaria and dwelt securely there. In xx. 13 — 18. and 
xxii. 8. one prophet only appears. In xx. 37. one belonging to the 
schools of the prophets met Ahab. Micaiah had been incarcerated, 
as we learn from 1 Kings xxii. 26. Because Elijah thought that he 
alone was left of all the true prophets, it does not follow that all 
had been really put to death except himself. Again, Ahab is said 
to have been punished for an action noble in itself, the inadmissibility 
of which had not been hinted at to him in the present case. (1 Kings 
xx. 42.) But this remark of Thenius's is incorrect. It was un- 
theocratic to spare the life of Benhadad. The prophet had not 
advised Ahab to spare the king of Syria. He had told him that 
God would deliver all the multitude of the Syrians into his hand ; 
whence he might readily have inferred what he should do to them. 
Again, according to 2 Kings ix. 26. Ahab killed Naboth's children 
as well as himself; whereas in 1 Kings xxi. 13. he is said only to have 
put the father to death. This discrepancy is easily removed. In the 
latter passage, the murder of the children is not specified, because it 
would be understood of itself. It is farther said that the course of 
the narrative does not satisfy expectations which the reader justly 
entertains, as in 1 Kings xix. 15 — 17. ; but this is a matter of mere 
opinion, or else the blame, if any, should be attributed to the history, 
not to the author. 1 

There are certain repetitions, however, which show the different 
sources whence they were taken, and evince a redactor rather than 
an independent writer. Thus the same thing is twice narrated in a 
somewhat different manner, in 1 Kings ix. 27, 28., and x. 22. Both 
speak of the same navigation to Ophir in the time of Solomon, as 
Thenius has convincingly proved, notwithstanding Keil's reluctance 
to admit it. In like manner there are repetitions of the same thing 
in 2 Kings ix. 14. 16. compared with viii. 28, 29., and xiv. 15, 16. 
compared with xiii. 12, 13. Keil 2 attempts to account for these by 
appealing to the standing custom of oriental writers, who did so with 
the view of more vividly portraying a thing ; but it is much more 
natural to refer them to diversity of authorship. 

Besides, there are pieces now separated which belong to one 
another as parts of a continuous writing, the later being the con- 
tinuation of the former. These also show diversity of sources. Thus 
1 Kings ix. 24. is a continuation of iii. 1 — 3. Keil, however, denies 
that the one could have stood after the other in any document. In 
like manner xi. 41. is a continuation of x. 29. 

1 See Keil, Einleit. pp. 212, 213. "■ Ibid. p. 214. 



670 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Sometimes a section which should have been put earlier in point 
of time is brought after, lest the thread of what precedes should be 
interrupted. Thus 2 Kings xiii. 14., &c, where the death of Elisha 
is told, is put after Joash, though the prophet died during the reign 
of that monarch. 

These phenomena render it apparent that the unity and indepen- 
dence of the work are not so great or pervading as some have sup- 
posed. Doubtless they are conspicuous for the most part. Yet 
there are various exceptions, as has been shown. The putting to- 
gether of different sources can be detected here and there. The 
intercalation of peculiar sections may be discovered. Doubtless the 
author generally used his sources freely, so as to leave upon the 
work his peculiar impress ; yet there are at times looseness of con- 
nection, a twofold relation of the same thing, repetitions, discre- 
pancies, all pointing to the fact that the writer was occasionally 
inexact. 

The time and authorship can only be determined generally not 
specifically. The history is continued down to the time of Evilmero- 
dach, and terminates with an account of the liberation of Jehoiachin 
king of Judah from prison, at Babylon. It may therefore be said 
that it was composed towards the end of the captivity, after the death 
of Jehoiachin, and perhaps after the reign of Evilmerodach. (2 Kings 
xxv. 27.) Jewish tradition makes Jeremiah the author. This opinion 
has been embraced by Grotius, and vindicated by Havernick l and 
Graf. 2 In favour of it are adduced the linguistic affinities of Jere- 
miah and the work before us ; the gloomy view of history common to 
both ; certain favourite ideas which are sometimes expressed in nearly 
the same words, particularly that of the choice and continuance of 
the royal house of David ; a propensity to borrow modes of speech 
from the Pentateuch ; a careful reference to former prophecies ; and 
above all the relation between 2 Kings xxiv. 18. &c, and Jer. lii. 3 
Plausible and strong as these arguments together may appear, we 
cannot admit their sufficiency to prove the point in debate. The 
various points of similarity adduced by Havernick are best explained 
in another way. Similarity of age, as well as the acquaintance of 
the one writer with the other, either as he now is, or with his sources, 
will contribute to account for the analogy as far as it really exists. 
Various hypotheses have been put forth to account for the agreement 
between 2 Kings xxiv. 18. &c. and Jer. lii. which we need not enu- 
merate ; perhaps that of Keil is the most probable, viz. that the sec- 
tion was extracted by the author or redactor of both works from a 
common source. 4 Others, as Calmet, have fixed upon Ezra as the 
author, relying upon various peculiarities in the books which would 
suit any other person living about his time almost as well. Not one 
of the marks, nor all together, indicate Ezra. They correspond indeed 
to him ; but they also correspond to many others. Besides, some cir- 
cumstances in the books are adverse to the idea of bringing down 

1 Einleitung, ii. 1. p. 171. 

2 De librorum Samuelis et Regum compositions, p. 61. et.seqq. 

3 Havernick, Einleit. p. 171. et seqq. 4 Ibid. p. 216. 






On the Tivo Books of Kings. 671 

the composition after the captivity, especially 1 Kings vi. 1. 37, 38., 
where mention is made of the months Zif and Bui, names which 
were not in use after the captivity. 

The writer lived in Babylon, not Egypt, as may be inferred from 
1 Kings v. 1. and 2 Kings xxv. 27 — 29. He belonged to Judah, not 
Israel, as appears from his going much more into detail with respect 
to matters affecting the kingdom of Judah, from his zeal for the 
worship of God, and his attributing the misfortunes of the state to 
the separation of the ten tribes. (2 Kings xvii. 21.) Whether he was 
a pupil of Jeremiah, as Thenius l conjectures, we leave undetermined. 
It is certain that he exhibits the prophetic spirit ; and that he was 
familiar with the sacred literature of his country. 

In relation to the sources used by the writer, he himself mentions 
several, as the Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings xi. 41.) ; the 
Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah (1 Kings xiv. 29., 
xv. 7. 23., xxii. 46. ; 2 Kings viii. 23., x. 20., &c); the Book of the 
Chronicles of the Kings of Israel (1 Kings xiv. 19., xv. 31., xvi. 5. 
14. 20. 27., xxii. 39. ; 2 Kings i. 18., &c). The book of the Chronicles 
of the Kings of Judah, and the book of the Chronicles of the Kings 
of Israel, were probably two leading divisions of one large work 
which is quoted as a whole by the compiler of Chronicles in a variety 
of ways, — the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel (2 Chron. xxxii. 
32.), the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah (2 Chron. xxxv. 27.), 
the Book of the Kings (2 Chron. xxiv. 27.), the Book of the Kings of 
Israel (2 Chron. xx. 34.). If we may judge from the last allusions to 
it, the history of Judah was not carried farther down than the reign 
of Jehoiakim (2 Kings xxiv. 5.); and that of Israel only as far as the 
time of Pekah (2 Kings xv. 31.). If seems to have been a work 
relating to the public events of the nation — annals of the kingdoms, 
not official documents, occupied with the reigns and acts of the kings, 
composed in part by prophets or prophetic men at different times ; 
succeeding writers employing the prophetic monographs of their pre- 
decessors. It is impossible to discover the exact nature and plan of it 
farther than that it appears to have been no connected and continuous 
history taken up by successive prophets or other men one after an- 
other at the point where it stopped, and continued as far as their own 
knowledge went, so that it began with the commencement of the 
two kingdoms and continued regularly to narrate the actions of their 
kings and other leading personages ; but rather to have been made up, 
not long before the downfall of Judah, of materials which had accumu- 
lated in the progress of time — materials which proceeded for the most 
part from such as had been contemporary with the events they re- 
corded ; from prophets and prophetic men. From the manner in which 
the writer of Kings refers to this larger work, it has been inferred 
by Thenius, that he himself did not use it, and that he did not have 
it before him ; but an abridgment, or a summary narrative extracted 
from it. We are unable to perceive the probability of this hypothesis, 
or how it is favoured by the circumstances adduced on its behalf. 

1 Die Bilcher der Koenige, Einleit. p. x. 



672 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Had it been affirmed that the work itself entitled the Booh of the 
Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and Israel was in part a summary 
or extract, we should have assented ; but the supposition of Thenius 
is unlikely. The book of the Acts of Solomon has been identified 
by the same critic with the book of Nathan the prophet quoted in 
2 Chron. ix. 29., not happily as we think. It referred to the reign 
of Solomon. Another source was oral tradition, from which the 
greater part of what is related respecting Elijah and Elisha (1 Kings 
xvii. — xix. and xxi., 2 Kings i. ii. iv. — vii. viii. xiii.) may have been 
drawn. With respect to the traditional portions, it is more probable 
that the redactor of the books of Kings first wrote them himself, than 
that they had been already reduced to writing from oral tradition 
and were employed in that state. It appears to us that Thenius 
has reduced too much the extent of the writer's own composition. 
There is no good reason for disallowing him the authorship of the 
sections which were chiefly drawn from tradition ; and so confining 
his independent action to a very few small sections and observa- 
tions, which are insignificant in comparison with the entire work. 
Other sources are scarcely indicated by the writer himself of the 
Kings; and it is needless to speculate about them or attempt to 
ascertain them. 

The author seems to have used his sources freely and independently, 
whatever they were. He also employed them faithfully, so much so 
that they were sometimes allowed to remain unchanged, even when 
the time implied in them did not suit his own period but that in 
which they were written. Thus in 1 Kings viii. 8. the temple is 
supposed to be still standing; and in 2 Kings x. 27. Samaria is re- 
presented as remaining. These and similar particulars are a proof 
that the writer made no rash or arbitrary changes in the documents 
and materials at his disposal ; since he did not look upon it as neces- 
sary to adapt every thing to his own time. The fact that all his 
allusions do not belong to one period shows that he did not alter the 
sources, even where he might have done so with advantage to the 
perspicuity and unity of his history. 

The books of Kings are connected with those of Samuel not only 
as they resume the history where it had been broken off, but 
because they contain many points of analogy. Hence some have 
attributed both to the same author. The most prominent references 
in them to those of Samuel are 1 Kings ii. 26. &c. to 1 Sam. ii. 35. ; 
1 Kings ii. 4. &c. to 2 Sam. vii. 17—19. ; ] Kings viii. 18. 25. to 2 
Sam. vii. 12 — 16. There is also a similarity between 1 Kings ii. 11. 
and 2 Sam. v. 5. as well as 1 Kings iv. 1 — 6. and 2 Sam. viii. 15 — 
18. Stahelin has also pointed out a similarity of diction between the 
first and second chapters of 1 Kings and the second book of Samuel. 
But the differences are too great to allow of identity of authorship, or 
of the hypothesis of Ewald that the books of Samuel and Kings were 
once connected as parts of a large work embracing Judges and Ruth 
besides. 1 There are no traces of the Babylonish exile in Samuel ; 

1 Sec Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. i. p. 164. et seqq. 



On the Boohs of Chronicles. 673 

neither are there any allusions to the Mosaic law. Sources are not 
quoted as they are in Kings ; chronological dates are neglected ; 
whereas in Kings they are carefully given. The worship of Jehovah 
is differently spoken of, and the general spirit of the narrative is 
unlike. Prophetic interposition, and the recognition of theocratic 
influence in the rise and fall of kings, appear but little in the books 
of Kings. Indeed the later diction alone is sufficient to disprove 
identity of authorship or intimate connection. Possibly the first two 
chapters of the Kings and the second book of Samuel flowed in part 
from a common source, which will account for their affinities. 

The historical character and credibility of the books commend 
themselves to the reader by strong external and internal evidence. 
The history bears the impress of verisimilitude by the genuine 
theocratic spirit that pervades it, and its consonance with the times 
to which it belongs. The author repeatedly refers to his sources, 
showing that he made a careful and conscientious use of them. The 
credibility of the history is confirmed by a comparison of it with the 
same accounts substantially which are found in second Chronicles, 
drawn for the most part from the same sources. Some indeed have 
found mythical and traditionary fabulous particulars in various places, 
especially when the miraculous or supernatural is recorded respecting 
the prophets ; but in so doing they have overlooked all critical and 
historical grounds, to make way for the influence of doctrinal prepos- 
sessions. The essence of a theocracy like the Jewish one comports 
with, if it does not require, the active manifestation of God's Spirit in 
a class of men like the prophets, who occupied a position so influential 
in the national affairs, standing between the people and the tyranny 
of kings. The history of Elijah and Elisha has given most offence to 
neological critics, because it partakes more of the supernatural ele- 
ment than other portions. The proofs adduced in favour of the 
opinion that the biographies of these prophets were the latest part 
reduced to writing, in consequence of alleged traditional and fabulous 
elements contained in them, are weak, such as, a deficiency in regard 
to accurate notices of names and places, the choice of names full of 
meaning (as Obadiah in the history of Elijah), offences against geo- 
graphy, improbabilities generally, and traces of later customs. 1 Some 
of these are incorrect, others unproved. The divine authority of the 
books is attested by the apostle Paul in Romans xi. 2 — 4., and by 
references to them in Luke iv. 25 — 27., James v. 17, 18. 



CHAP. VIII. 

THE BOOKS OF CHRONICLES. 



The ancient Jews comprehended the two books of Chronicles in 
one, with the title D^n ^3*7, words of the days, annals. But in the 
Septuagint version, they were separated into two, with the inscription 

1 Comp. Tlienius, Die Biicher cler Koenige, Einkit. p. ix. 
VOL. II. X X 



674 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

TTapaXsnroiJbBva, things omitted, i. e., supplements, remains of other his- 
torical ivorks, as Movers x thinks ; or things left, because they contain 
many things omitted in the Kings, as the author of the Synopsis of 
Sacred Scripture printed in Athanasius's works 2 , explains it. The 
present English title is taken from the Latin Chronicon, which 
Jerome applied to them. The contents are most conveniently divided 
into five parts. 

I. Genealogies with geographical and topographical lists. (1 Chron. 
i. — ix.) 

II. The history of David's reign. (1 Chron. x. — xxix.) 

III. The history of Solomon's reign. (2 Chron. i. — ix.) 

IV. The history of the kingdom of Judah while that of Israel 
existed, excluding the history of the latter. (2 Chron. x. — xxviii.) 

V. The history of the kingdom of Judah while it existed alone, 
especially in relation to the worship of Jehovah. (2 Chron. xxix. — 
xxxvi.) 

These divisions may be partitioned into the following minor sec- 
tions : — 

1. The genealogies of the patriarchs from Adam to Isaac, (i. 1 — 34.) 

2. The posterity of Esau, the kings and dukes of Edom. (i. 35 — 54.) 

3. The sons of Jacob, and the posterity of Judah to David, (ii. 
1—55.) 

4. The sons of David, and Solomon's royal descendants to the 
grandsons of Zerubbabel, and still later, (iii. 1 — 24.) 

5. Genealogies of other descendants of Judah, with some old his- 
torical notices, (iv. 1 — 23.) 

6. Genealogical registers of the tribes of Simeon, Reuben, Gad, arid 
the half-tribe of Manasseh, with an account of the residences, deeds, 
and fortunes of single families belonging to them. (iv. 24 — v. 26.) 

7. The sons of Levi and the posterity of Aaron down to Jehoza- 
dak, who went into captivity, together with other fragments of Le- 
vitical genealogies, and a list of the cities belonging to the Levites. 
(v. 27— vi. 66.) 

8. Genealogical fragments of the posterity of Issachar, Benjamin, 
Naphtali, Manasseh, Ephraim, Asher, including some account of the 
number of men belonging to them able to carry arms, and other his- 
torical notices, (vii. 1 — viii. 40.) 

9. A list of individual families dwelling in Jerusalem, and 
another family register of Saul. (ix. 1 — 34.) 

10. The genealogy of Saul and his posterity through Jonathan, 
(ix. 35—44.) 

11. In the history of David's reign we have his inauguration, a 
list of his worthies, and account of his forces (xi. xii.), to which the 
narrative of Saul and Jonathan's death serves as an introduction, (x.) 

12. The bringing up of the ark from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem, 
and the service on that occasion, (xiii. — xvi.) 

1 3. Divine approbation of David's purpose to build a temple to 
Jehovah, (xvii.) 

1 Kritische Untersuchungen ueber die biblische Chronik, p. 95. 

2 Athanas. Opp. ii. p. 82. 



On the Books of Chronicles. 675 

14. David's victories over the Philistines, Moabites, Syrians, 
Edomites, and over the Ammonites, (xviii. — xx.) 

15. Account of David's census of the people, and of a plague in- 
flicted, (xxi. 1—27.) 

16. His regulations respecting the worship of God. (xxi. 28 — 
xxvi.) 

17. Regulations for the administration of his kingdom, with a list 
of David's military and civil officers, (xxvii.) 

18. Address to Solomon respecting the building of the temple, 
with the liberal contributions of David and his subjects for that pur- 
pose, and his thanksgiving, (xxviii. xxix.) 

19. The piety, wisdom, and grandeur of Solomon. (2 Chron. i.) 

20. Account of the erection and consecration of the temple, with 
some other edifices built by him, followed by a brief history of the 
remainder of his reign, till his death. (2 Chron. ii. — ix.) 

21. The accession of Rehoboarn to the throne, division of his king- 
dom into two parts, and plundering of Jerusalem by Shishak. (2 
Chron. x. — xii.) 

22. The reigns of Abijah and Asa. (xiii. — xvi.) 

23. The reign of Jehoshaphat. (xvii. — xx.) 

24. The reigns of Jehoram and Ahaziah, with Athaliah's usurpa- 
tion, (xxi. xxii.) 

25. The reign of Joash. (xxiii. xxiv.) 

26. The reigns of Amaziah, Uzziah, and Jotham. (xxv.' — xxvii.) 

27. The reign of Ahaz. (xxviii.) 

28. The reign of Hezekiah. (xxix. — xxxii.) 

29. The reigns of Manasseh and Am on. (xxxiii.) 

30. The reign of Josiah. (xxxiv. xxxv.) 

31. The reigns of Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, 
with the destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple, (xxxvi.) 

Let us now consider the relation between the Chronicles and other 
historical books in the Old Testament canon. With regard to the 
genealogical part, or the first nine chapters, individual parallels ap- 
pear in the historical books ; but nothing like complete parallels to 
the whole. Some things are found elsewhere ; some notices contain 
single names which appear in earlier books with a number of new and 
unknown names ; while other notices are peculiar to Chronicles. Ot 
the first kind are the genealogical accounts in i. 1- — ii. 2., which re- 
late to the ante-Mosaic period, all which appear in Genesis. (Comp. 
Gen. v. x. xi. 10—32., xxv. 12—16. 1 — 4., xxxvi. 10—43.) There 
can be little doubt that the book of Genesis was the source whence 
these notices were taken. Notices of the second kind are peculiar ; 
names of races and persons which are met with in the older his- 
torical books, but appear in Chronicles in a certain genealogical 
connection, partly at the head of longer series which are peculiar to 
the latter. Hence the parallels here are isolated. 

1 Chron. ii. 10 — 12. the ancestors of David ; comp. Ruth iv. 19 — 

22. 
ii. 13 — 17. the brethren of David; comp. 1 Sam. xvi. 

6. &c. 



676 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

1 Chron. iii. 1 — 9. the sons of David, both those born at Hebron 

and Jerusalem; comp. 2 Sam. iii. 2 — 6., v. 14 — 16. 
iii. lO-r-16. the kings of Judah ; comp. the books of 

Kings, 
ii. 3. &c. the sons of Judah ; comp. Gen. xxxviii. 
ii. 5. the sons of Pharez; comp. Gen. xlvi, 12. 
iv. 24. the sons of Simeon ; comp. Gen. xlvi. 10., Exod. 

vi. 15., Numb. xxvi. 12, 13. 
iv. 28 — 32. the dwelling-places of the Simeonites; comp. 

Josh. xix. 2 — 7. 
v. 3. the sons of Reuben ; comp. Gen. xlvi. 9., Exod. vi. 

14., Numb. xxvi. 5. 
vi. 1 — 39. the sons of Levi; comp. Gen. xlvi. 11., Exod. 

vi. 18 — 23., xxviii. 1. 
vi. 40 — 66. Levi's dwelling-places; comp. Josh. xxi. 

10—39. 
vii. 1. the sons of Issachar ; comp. Gen. xlvi. 13., Numb. 

xxvi. 23. &c. 
vii. 6. the sons of Benjamin; comp. Gen. xlvi. 21., Numb. 

xxvi. 38. &c. 
vii. 13. the sons of Naphtali ; comp. Gen. xlvi. 24., Numb. 

xxvi. 48. &c. 
vii. 14 — 19. the sons of Manasseh ; comp. Numb. xxvi. 

29. &c. 
vii. 20. &c. the sons of Ephraim ; comp. Numb. xxvi. 35 

m — 38. 
vii. 30. &c. the sons of Asher ; comp. Gen. xlvi. 17., 

Numb. xxvi. 44. &c. 
viii. 1 — 5. the sons of Benjamin; comp. Gen. xlvi. 21., 

Numb. xxvi. 38. &c. 
viii. 29 — 40. 1 the descendants of Saul ; comp. 1 Sam. ix. 
ix. 35—44. J 1., xiv. 49—51. 

In different places the names vary from one another, owing proba- 
bly to mistakes in transcription, as well as to other causes. There 
are also differences in the number of families, which can hardly be 
explained in the same manner. A consideration of the different 
passages now given, as well as of the genealogies of the third kind, 
which are wholly peculiar to the Chronicles, will show that they 
were not taken from the historical books of the Old Testament, but 
compiled from ancient genealogical and topographical lists existing 
among the author's contemporaries. The most perplexing portion is 
the parallelism of 1 Chron. ix. 1 — 34. and Neh. xi. 3 — 36. Are 
these lists the same or not ? De Wette, Gramberg, and Movers 
affirm their identity ; while Keil and Welte deny it. It is impossible 
for us to enter on a discussion of the point in the present place. We 
have not been persuaded by the argumentation of Keil that they are 
different. 1 Rather do they appear to have been taken from a common 

1 See Keil's Apologetischer Versuch ueber die Biicher der Chronik, n. s. w. p. 159. et 
seqq., aud Eiuleitung, pp. 477, 478. 



On the Books of Chronicles. 



677 



source. The one in Chronicles should not be called, with some 
critics, a corrupt form of that in Nehemiah. How the present 
diversities originated — diversities which will always puzzle the in- 
quirer — it is almost presumptuous to conjecture. It is certainly the 
easier method to say with Keil, that the divergences are so great 
as to render it impossible that the two lists refer to the same persons 
at the same time ; but there are certain particulars which lead us to 
reject his view of Nehemiah's being post-exilian, and the Chronicle 
one being prior. 

In the history of David, Solomon, and the kings of Judah, there 
are upwards of forty sections parallel to others in the books of 
Samuel and Kings, as will be seen from the following table : — 



1 Chron. x. 1—12. 

xi. 1—9. 

xi. 10—47. 

xiii. 1—14. 

xiv. 1—7. 8—17. 

xv. xvi. 

xvii. 

xviii. 

xix. 

xx. 1—3. 

xx. 4—8. 

xxL 

2 Chron. i. 2—13. 

i. 14—17. 

ii. 

iii. 1 — v. 1. 

vii. 11—22. 

viii. 

ix. 1—12. 

ix. 13—31. 

x. 1— xi. 4. 

xii. 2. 3. 9—16. - 

xiii. 1. 2. 22, 23. 

xiv. 1, 2. xv. 16—19. 

xvi. 1—6. 11—14. 

xviii. 2—34. 

xx. 31 — xxi. 1 - 

xxi. 5—10. 20. - 

xxii. 1 — 9. 

xxii. 10 — xxiii. 21. 
xxiv. 1—14. 23—27. 
xxv. 1—4. 11. 17—28. 
xxvi. 1 — 4. 21. 23. 

xxvii. 1 — 3. 7 — 9. 
xxviii. 1—4. 26, 27. 
xxix. 1, 2. 
xxxii. 1 — 21. 
xxxii. 24, 25. 32, 33. 
xxxiii. 1 — 10. 20—25. 
xxxiv. 1, 2, 8—28. 
xxxiv. 29 — 33. - 
xxxv. 1. 18—24.26, 27. 

xxxvi. 1 — 4. 
xxxvi. 5, 6. 8—12. 

xxxvi. 22, 23. - 



1 Sam. xxxi. 



2 Sam. v. 1—3. 6—10. 
xxiii. 8—39. 
vi. 1—11. 
v. 11—16. 17—25. 
vi. 12—23. 
vii. 
viii. 
x. 

xi. 1. & xii. 26—31. 
xxi 18—22. 
xxiv. 

1 Kings iii. 4 — 15. 

x. 26—29. 
v. 15—32. 
vi. vii. 13—51. 
ix. 1—9. 
ix. 10—28. 
x. 1—13. 
x. 14—29. 
xii. 1—24. 
xiv. 21—31. 
xv. 1, 2. 6—8. 
xv. 11—16. 
xv. 17—24. 
xxii. 2—35. 
xxii. 41 — 51. 

2 Kings viii. 17 — 24. 

viii. 25—29. ix. 16 
—28. x. 12—14. 

xi. 

xii. 1—22. 

xiv. 1—14. 17—20. 

xiv. 21, 22. xv. 

2—5. 7. 

xv. 32—36. 38. 

xvi. 2—4. 19, 20. 

xviii. 2, 3. 

xviii. 13 — xix. 37. 

xx. 1,2. 20, 21. 

xxi. 1—9. 18—24. 

xxii. 

xxiii. 1 — 20. 

xxiii. 21 — 23. 28. 
29—34. 

xxiii. 36, 37. xxiv. 1. 
5, 6. 8—19. 
Ezra i. 1—2. 



678 Introduction to the Old Testament 

In regard to these parallels many grave and difficult questions 
arise which we are not in a position to resolve. It will be observed, — 

(a.) That a considerable number of primary facts are omitted by 
the Chronicle writer, as the scene between Michal and David (2 
Sam. vi. 20 — 23.); the latter's kindness to Ziba (2 Sam. ix.); his 
adultery with Bathsheba (2 Sam. xi. 2 — xii. 25.); Amnon's incest 
with Tamar ; the rebellion of Absalom and its consequences (2 Sam. 
xiii. — xix.) ; Sheba's revolt (xx.) ; the surrender of Saul's seven sons 
to the Gibeonites as an atonement (xxi. 1 — 14.) ; a war with the 
Philistines (xxi. 15 — 17.); David's psalm of thanksgiving and last 
Avords (xxii. xxiii. 1 — 7.) ; Adonijah's usurpation of the kingdom, 
and Solomon's anointing as king (1 Kings i.) ; David's last charge 
(1 Kings ii. 1 — 9.); strengthening of Solomon's kingdom by the 
punishment of disturbers (ii. 13 — 46.); Solomon's marriage with 
Pharaoh's daughter (iii. 1.); his wise judgment (iii. 16 — 28.); his 
princes and officers, greatness and wisdom (iv. 1 — v. 14.) ; the build- 
ing of his palace (vii. 1 — 12.) ; his wives and concubines, and his 
idolatry (1 Kings xi. 1 — 40.) ; the history of the ten tribes as a 
kingdom. 

(b.) Primary facts again, are added in the Chronicles which do not 
appear in the Kings, as the companies that came to David at Ziklag, 
and the warriors that came to him at Hebron (1 Chron. xii.); his 
preparations for building the temple (xxii.); the number and distri- 
bution of the Levites and priests (xxiii. — xxvi.) ; the arrangement of 
the army and the officers (xxvii.); his last exhortations and regula- 
tions in a solemn assembly shortly before his death (xxviii. xxix.) ; 
in the history of Judah, accounts of Rehoboam's strengthening the 
kingdom with forts and stores ; the reception of the Levites that 
came from Israel in Judah ; the wives and children of Kehoboam (2 
Chron. xi. 5 — 20.); Abijah's war with Jeroboam (xiii. 3 — 20.); the 
notice of Abijah's wives and children (xii. 21.) ; Asa's endeavours to 
strengthen his kingdom, and victory over Zerah the Ethiopian (xiv. 
3 — 14.); Azariah the prophet's address to Asa, in consequence of 
which the king renounces idolatry (xv. 1 — 15.); the address of the 
prophet Hanani (xvi. 7 — 10.) ; Jehoshaphat's efforts to strengthen 
his kingdom and establish the worship of Jehovah, his greatness and 
armies (xvii. 2 — xviii. 1.); his judicial arrangements (xix.) ; his vic- 
tory over the Ammonites, Moabites, and other confederate peoples 
(xx. 1 — 30.); his provision for his sons, and their slaughter by 
Jehoram, who succeeded to the throne (xxi. 2 — 4.) ; Jehoram's ido- 
latry and punishment (xxi. 1 1 — 19.); death of the high priest Jehoiada 
and fall of Joash into idolatry (xxiv. 15 — 22.) ; Amaziah's army and 
idolatry (xxv. 5 — 10. and 14 — 16.); Uzziah's wars, victories, forts, 
and army (xxvi. 6 — 15.) ; Jotham's fortresses and war with the 
Ammonites (xxvii. 4 — 6.); Hezekiah's cleansing of the temple, cele- 
bration of the passover, and arrangement of the worship of Jehovah 
(xxix. 3 — xxxi. 21.); Hezekiah's riches (xxxii. 27 — 30.); Manas- 
seh's transportation to Babylon, his deliverance, and restoration 
(xxxiii. 11 — 17.). 

(c.) Short notices in the books of Samuel and Kings are here 



On the Books of Chronicles. 679 

enlarged and completed, as the list of David's heroes (1 Chron. xi. 
11 — 47.), the names in 42 — 47. being deficient in 2 Sam. xxiii. The 
history of the transference of the ark from Kirjath-jearim is enlarged 
by an account of the part which the priests and Levites took in the 
work, and the services they performed in attending continually upon 
the ark after it was fixed on mount Zion (comp. 1 Chron. xiii. 2., 
xv. 2 — 24., xvi. 4 — 43., with 2 Sam. vi.). In the temple arrangements, 
the description of the candlesticks, tables, and courts is added (2 
Chron. iv. 6 — 9. comp. with 1 Kings vii. 38, 39.). The description 
of the brazen scaffold on which Solomon kneeled in prayer is also 
new (2 Chron. vi. 12, 13., comp. with 1 Kings viii. 22.). The 41st 
and 42nd verses of 2 Chron. vi. are inserted from Psal. cxxxii. 7 — 9. 
The notice about fire from heaven consuming the sacrifice, 2 Chron. 
vii. 1. &c. is new. The divine promise is extended (2 Chron. vii. 
12 — 16. comp. with 1 Kings ix. 3.). The history of Shishak's inva- 
sion of Judah is enlarged by a notice of the strength of his army, and 
Shemaiah's discourse (2 Chron. xii. 2 — 8. comp. with 1 Kings xiv. 
25.). In like manner, details are introduced respecting Amaziah's 
victory over the Edomites (xxv. 11 — 16. comp. with 2 Kings xiv. 7.). 
The cause of Uzziah's leprosy is given (xxvi. 16 — 21. comp. with 
2 Kings xv. 5.). The celebration of the passover under Josiah is 
augmented by an account of the services of the Levites and priests 
(xxxv. 2 — 19. comp. with 2 Kings xxiii. 21. &c). 

(d.) Smaller additions and insertions of a historical nature may be 
found in 1 Chron. xi. 6. 8. comp. with 2 Sam. v. 8, 9. ; the Egyptian's 
stature, 1 Chron. xi. 23. comp. with 2 Sam. xxiii. 21.; Solomon's 
making the brazen sea ; the pillars and vessels in the temple of brass 
which David had taken from Hadarezer, 1 Chron. xviii. 8. comp. 
with 2 Sam. viii. 8. ; the circumstance that Abishai, son of Zeruiah, 
slew Edomites in the valley of Salt, 1 Chron. xviii. 12. comp. with 
2 Sam. viii. 13. ; that the Ammonites hired Syrian chariots and 
horsemen for a thousand talents of silver, 1 Chron. xix. 6. comp. with 
2 Sam. x. 6. &c. &c. &c. 

(<?.) The diversity between the parallels consists also in a varying 
orthography, such as the more frequent use of the so-called scriptio 
plena, Aramaean and later forms of words, alterations of construction, 
grammatical corrections, &c. These adaptations to the prevailing 
language of the day show its younger and more degenerate state as 
compared with its condition when the books of Samuel were written. 
Examples are given by Movers 1 and Keil. 2 Some constructions 
seem to have been avoided, and names changed for the sake of pre- 
spicuity ; at least this appears the most probable way of accounting 
for alterations of words, forms, and phrases here and there. Exam- 
ples of this kind are also given by Movers and Keil. 

(/.) Sometimes a number of secondary and small particulars are 
omitted, consisting perhaps of a few words, of which an instance 
occurs in 1 Chron. x. 12. comp. with 1 Sam. xxxi. 12. ; while again 

1 Kritische Untersuchungen, u. s. w. p. 200. et seqq. 

2 Einleitning, p. 482- et seqq. 

x x 4 



680 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

details are abridged, as in Chron. xx. 1, 2. comp. with 2 Sam. xii. 27 
— 29. in the account of the tortures inflicted upon the inhabitants of 
Rabbah. These small omissions and abridgments sometimes create 
considerable difficulty when the higher criticism is applied to them, 
as the copious notes respecting them by De Wette, Movers, Keil, and 
others will show. 

(jgi.) Explanatory remarks, reflections, and concluding observations, 
also distinguish the passages in Chronicles as compared with those in 
the earlier books to which they correspond. For example, in 1 Chron. 
xiii. 9. his hand is inserted, a word which is not in the parallel, 2 Sam. 
vi. 6. See also the reflections on Saul's merited death in 1 Chron. x. 
13. &c. ; and compare the passage with 1 Sam. xxxi. 12. A closing 
remark appears in 1 Chron. xiv. 17. comp. with 2 Sam. v. 25. 

The scope of the entire work points to the temple and Levitical 
worship. The writer living after the captivity in degenerate times, 
and looking back to the history of his country before its disasters, 
appears to have been animated by the desire to hold up the mirror of 
history before the eyes of his contemporaries, that they might see the 
true cause of national prosperity in attention to the worship of 
Jehovah. His design was didactic rather than historical. Indeed, 
the historic materials and form were intended to subserve a re- 
ligious purpose. He meant to give a history of the people of Israel 
under David and his posterity, from the time when Jerusalem became 
the centre of the kingdom, as well as a history of the restored church, 
with main reference to the times in which religion prevailed, to the 
men who were most efficient in setting ecclesiastical affairs on a firm 
foundation and restoring the true worship of Jehovah, and to the 
most important events relating to that worship when it was connected 
with Jerusalem. Hence his treatment of the history is in a great 
measure regulated by the religious element. Hence also originated 
his endeavours to communicate copious information about the tribe of 
Levi, its arrangements and divisions, its employments and offices. 
The Levitical tendency of the book appears throughout, in connec- 
tion with a love for genealogical lists of names. In this manner the 
books form a valuable supplement to the history of the theocracy. 

With regard to the sources employed by the writer, he himself 
refers to the following. 1. The book of Samuel the seer, of Nathan 
the prophet, and of Gad the seer. (1 Chron. xxix. 29.) 2. The 
book of Nathan the prophet, the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, 
and the visions of Iddo the seer. (2 Chron. ix. 29.) 3. The book of 
Shemaiah the prophet and of Iddo the seer, concerning genealogies. 
(2 Chron. xii. 15.) 4. The history of the prophet Iddo. (2 Chron. 
xiii. 22.) 5. The book of Jehu the son of Hanani, which was 
transferred to the book of the Kings of Israel. (2 Chron. xx. 34.) 
6. The book of the Kings of Judah and Israel. (2 Chron. xvi. 11., 
xxv. 26., xxviii. 26.) 7. The story of the book of the Kings. 
(2 Chron. xxiv. 27.) 8. A writing of Isaiah the prophet. (2 Chron. 
xxvi. 22.) 9. The book of the Kings of Israel and Judah. (2 Chron. 
xxvii. 7., xxxv. 27., xxxvi. 8.) 10. The vision of Isaiah the prophet. 
(2 Chron. xxxii. 32.) 11. The book of the Kings of Israel. (2 Chron. 



On the Books of Chronicles. 681 

xxxiii. 18.) 12. The sayings of the seers (Hosai). (2 Chron. 
xxxiii. 19.) 

It is probable that numbers 6. 9. 5 (2). 11., refer to one and the same 
work. In other words, the Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, 
the Book of the Kings of Israel and Judah, the Words of the Kings of 
Israel, and the Book of. the Kings of Israel, all mean the same thing, 
i. e. a historical work of considerable extent, containing an account of 
all the kings of the northern and southern kingdom. The last two 
are merely abridged titles, and cannot mean that the work specified 
by them embraced no more than the kingdom of Israel ; for they are 
mentioned in connections which show that Judah was not excluded. 
Whether the same work is meant by 7., i. e. the story or Midrash of 
the book of the Kings, is ambiguous. Keil maintains that it is iden- 
tical, because the history of Joash, for which the Chronicle-writer re- 
fers to it, agrees as much with 2 Kings xi. xii., as the history of those 
kings in the Chronicles harmonises with that in the books of Kings 
where the Chronicles refer to the book of the Kings of Judah and 
Israel, but the books of Kings to the annals of the kingdoms of Judah 
and Israel. 1 This is not at all conclusive. The word Midrash is a 
rare one, occurring only in 2 Chron. xiii. 22. besides the present 
passage. And it is more natural to take it in the sense of an expla- 
natory writing, implying its total dissimilarity to the book of the 
Kings of Judah and Israel. In this manner both Thenius 2 and 
Bertheau 3 understand it. 

Numbers 1, 2, 3. 5 (1). 8. 10, 11. present greater difficulty. They are 
prophetic works ; and the chief point is, whether they w T ere separate, 
independent works, or parts of the large historical one just referred 
to. In relation to two of them, i. e. the zcords ("'I?"! 1 ) of Jehu son of 
Hanani (No. 5.), and the vision of Isaiah the prophet (10.), it is 
expressly stated that they were incorporated with the book of the 
Kings of Israel, or of Judah and Israel. (2 Chron. xx. 34., xxxii. 32.) 
From this circumstance Keil infers, that the rest were separate 
monographs employed by the Chronicle-writer ; because it is not 
said of them that they had been taken into the large historical woi'k. 4 
But we are disposed to draw the opposite conclusion, viz., that when 
the Chronicle-writer alludes to the words of Nathan, Shemaiah, &c. in 
the same manner as to the two writings just specified, he refers his 
readers to portions of a well-known work. Bertheau, by a minute 
examination of particular phenomena, has rendered it very probable 
that the apparently independent prophetic writings to which the 
author of the Chronicles alludes, were but sections belonging to the 
large historical work entitled the Book of the Kings of Judah andlrsael, 
&c. 5 According to this view, when reference is made in the history 
of David to the prophets Samuel, Nathan, and Gad (1 Chron. xxix. 
29. No. 1.); in the history of Solomon to Nathan, Abijah, and Iddo 
(2 Chron. ix. 29. No. 2.) ; in the history of Behoboam to Shemaiah 

1 Einleit. u. s. w. p. 494. 

2 Die Biicher der Koenige, u. s. w. Einleitung, p. iv. 

3 Die Biicher der Chronik erklart, Einleitung, pp. xxxiii. xxxiv. 

4 Einleit. p. 494. 5 Die Biicher der Chronik, Einleit. p. xxxiv. ct segq. 



682 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

and Iddo (2 Chron. xii. 15. No. 3.) &c., we must not suppose that 
these prophets wrote separate histories of David or a history of 
David in common, but rather that in the large historical work there 
was not merely an account of individual kings but also of the principal 
prophets who lived in their times and exerted an influence on their 
actions. According to it also, the visions of Iddo the seer against 
Jeroboam the son of Nebat are cited along with the book of Nathan 
the prophet; and the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, as containing 
the entire history of Solomon (2 Chron. ix. 29.), merely because it 
was in that part of the work where an account of Solomon was given. 
So also the vision of Isaiah the prophet the son of Amoz, in the 
book of the Kings of Judah and Israel, is quoted as a composition 
in which more copious information about Hezekiah was given. 
(2 Chron. xxxii. 32.) In the same way, also, the difficulty respecting 
the entire history of Jehoshaphat being given in the book of Jehu the 
son of Hanani is explained ; which otherwise is hardly possible on 
chronological grounds, for, according to 1 Kings xvi. 1., Jehu lived in 
the time of Baasha (953 — 930), whereas Jehoshaphat died about 
889. The book of Jehu refers merely to a section in the large 
work, which contained the history of Jehoshaphat. 

The Midrash of the prophet Iddo, No. 4. (2 Chron. xiii. 22.) is sup- 
posed by Bertheau to have contained an explanation of a section be- 
longing to the larger historical work. 

It has been disputed whether the writer of the Chronicles, having 
so many historical parallels to the contents of Kings and Samuel, 
used those canonical books or not. The question, perhaps, scarcely 
admits of a satisfactory solution, in consequence of its very nature. 
Notwithstanding all the particulars adduced by De Wette J in favour 
of the affirmative side, we are disposed to take the opposite view. 
The diversities are of such a kind as to indicate the fact of the 
Chronicle-writer following his own method, not only in omitting 
what the others possess, and giving what they have not, but also in the 
arrangement and succession of particulars. We must therefore hold 
that they were derived independently from a common source. Both 
De Wette and Movers refer to the natural connection in which the 
earlier accounts in Samuel and Kings stand with those omitted by 
the writer of the books of Chronicles ; but this shows little more than 
the superior skill of the prior writers. The same critics speak of the 
originality of character belonging to the earlier accounts in Samuel 
and Kings, in comparison with those of the Chronicles ; but this is 
questionable, and may be resolved into the cause just assigned. 
Nothing that we have seen advanced by the ablest advocates of the 
view that the Chronist must have been acquainted with and used the 
earlier books, is sufficient to outweigh the considerations which speak 
for the opposite. Especially do the larger and smaller additions in 
the Chronicles to what is found in the prior works, as well as the 
little omissions, show, by the connection in which they stand, and 
the manner they are interwoven, that the Chronist followed other 

1 EinleituDg, pp. 278, 279. 



On the Boohs of Chronicles. 683 

sources. Both the Chronicle-writer and the authors of Samuel and 
the Kings had some large common source, or a copious extract from 
it, which accounts for the existing parallelisms. All the writers took 
and used the common materials in a way suitable to their object, and 
with a certain degree of freedom. 

Although the large historical work, entitled the Book of the Kings 
of Judah and Israel, was the main source from which the Chronist 
took his account ; and though there are no express allusions to any 
other sources except that and the Midrash of the prophet Iddo, there 
is little doubt that he had genealogical registers, topographical and 
statistical lists, from which he drew. For example, the lists of 
David's heroes (1 Chron. xi. 10 — 47.), the account of the companies 
that came to David at Ziklag, and the armies that came to him at 
Hebron (1 Chron. xii.), the contents of chapters xxiii. — xxvii., were 
very ancient documents. Judging from the 23rd chapter of first 
Chronicles, they did not form a part of the main historical work 
which the writer employed, but formed a separate composition, be- 
cause the author appeals in xxiii. 25 — 27. to a part of the book of 
the Kings of Judah and Israel which contained the history of David's 
last years to confmn the account given in xxiii. 24., as Bertheau has 
observed. 1 

Whatever were the sources which the Chronist had, we must be- 
lieve that on the whole he made a careful use of them, and generally 
followed them pretty closely. Traces of the freedom with which 
he employed them may be occasionally detected in his manner of 
dealing with the older history ; but they form the exception to his 
usual method, which is more that of the compiler than independent 
writer. 

With respect to the age and author of the work before us, the 
chief passage bearing upon the former is 1 Chron. iii. 19 — 24., where 
the genealogy of the sons of Zerubbabel is carried down so far after 
him as to reach to the time of Alexander the Great. Zunz even 
brings it down to 260 B. C. 2 We readily allow that the passage 
is difficult to be understood, owing to the manner in which the 
names in the middle of the 21st verse stand in relation to the first 
clause of it. But the most natural construction is to take the sons of 
Rephaiah as the great-grandsons of Zerubbabel, so that five or six 
generations are enumerated after Zerubbabel. This brings it to the 
end of the Persian or commencement of the Grecian rule. To avoid 
tins inference Havernick and Movers resort to the hypothesis that 
the names beginning with the sons of Rephaiah in the 21st verse do 
not refer to the direct posterity of the preceding grandsons of Zerub- 
babel, but constitute a genealogy of returned exiles running parallel 
with that before it; while others, as Vitringa, Heidegger, Carpzor, 
and apparently Keil, regard the whole piece from 19. to 24. in- 
clusive as a later addition to the books of Chronicles. All such 
hypotheses are more like evasions than fan- attempts to deal with a 
place as it exists. Nothing definite respecting the time of com- 

1 Die Biicher cler Chronik, Einleit. p. xxxix. 

2 Die gottcsdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden, p. 33. 



684 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

position can be inferred from the mention of Darics in 1 Citron, 
xxix. 7., a Persian gold coin, except that it fell either under the 
Persian dominion or somewhat later. The word rn'3 applied to the 
temple in 1 Chron. xxix. 1. 19. does not necessarily limit the time to 
the Persian dynasty, since it is used in Esther. In the book of 
Nehemiah, there is an account of the Levitical families, brought 
down to the days of Jaddua the high priest who lived in the time of 
Alexander the Great. Jaddua was the last high priest of whom the 
compiler of that book knew. Now compositions which entered in 
part both into Nehemiah and Ezra were used in the book of Chro- 
nicles ; whence it may be inferred that the author lived some time 
after those personages. On the whole, it appears most likely that 
the book of Chronicles originated in the early part of the Grecian 
dominion, about 330 B.C. 1 

If the above date be nearly correct, it is obvious that Ezra cannot 
have been the author. Yet most of the ancient Jews, many of the 
Christian fathers, and the older theologians generally, assigned the 
Chronicles to him ; and in modern times Pareau, Eichhorn, and Keil 
have followed them. The reasons assigned for this opinion are such 
as will not stand the test of criticism. In favour of it are mentioned 
the correspondence of the last three verses of the Chronicles to the 
first three verses of the book of Ezra ; the great similarity of lan- 
guage ; the frequent citation of the law with the same formulas ; the 
preference shown for copious descriptions of the public worship, with 
the temple music and praises offered by the Levites in standing 
liturgical phrases, as also for genealogy and public registers. Grant- 
ing that these considerations go far to show that the books of Ezra 
and the Chronicles proceeded from the same writer, it still remains 
to be proved that Ezra wrote the book that bears his name ; whereas 
nothing is more certain in the department of the higher criticism than 
that Ezra was not the author of the book called after him. Accord- 
ing to De Wette 2 , the writer belonged to the priestly order. More 
probable is the opinion of Ewald 3 , that he was one of the musicians 
closely connected with the internal arrangements of the temple at 
Jerusalem, since he exhibits so much of the position occupied 
by the singers and doorkeepers. It is certain that he was disposed 
to collect with care, and to insert in his work, accounts relating to 
the Levites, of whom he speaks at length when occasion offered. 
He may, therefore, have been one of the Levites who filled some 
office in the temple. 

From the sections common to the books of Samuel, Kings, and 
Chronicles, conclusions have been deduced by the Rationalistic party 
very prejudicial to the historical character of the last work. Miscon- 
ception, ignorance, inaccuracies, exaggerations, a peculiar doctrinal 
and mythological way of thinking, a partiality for the Levitical 
worship and for the pious kings who were addicted to the Mosaic 
law, and hatred to the kingdom of Israel, have been attributed to the 
writer ; by virtue of which, it is alleged, he has violated historical truth, 

1 See Dillmann in Herzog's Encyclopsedie, art. Chronik. 

2 Emleitung, p. 285. ' 3 Geschichte, u. s. w., vol. i. pp. 225, 226. 



On the Books of Chronicles. 655 

or distorted and falsified the history of earlier times. In support of 
these weighty charges, many passages have been adduced by Gram- 
berg and De Wette, which have been carefully examined by Dahler, 
Keil, Movers, Havernick, and Welte. We cannot but believe that 
numerous accusations have been advanced against the book from mis- 
apprehension of the writer's general aim. A Levitical spirit un- 
doubtedly prevails in it, because the author was himself a Levite, and 
because of the Levitical spirit of the times to which he belonged. 
Things have been copiously described in connection with the times 
and object of the writer ; while many others have been omitted 
because they had little adaptation to his age. Besides, it is wrong to 
suppose that he derived his accounts from the books of Samuel and 
Kings, as though he had no trustworthy materials besides, and did 
not employ what he had in an accurate method. Speaking generally, 
the books themselves afford reason for supposing that the author 
possessed valuable materials besides those incorporated in the books 
of Samuel and Kings ; and that he used them with care and honesty. 

It cannot, however, be fairly denied that the sources which were at 
the disposal of the writer were not all alike trustworthy and accurate. 
Some were more so than others. Thus the descriptions of religious 
solemnities and festivals in 2 Chron. xxix. — xxxi. xxxv., 1 Chron. 
xv. xvi., the names in 1 Chron. xv. 5 — 11. 17 — 24., the accounts of 
the small number of priests and the help given to them by the Levites, 
2 Chron. xxix. 34. &c, xxx. 17., must have been derived in part 
from less accurate materials. At the same time they show more of 
the author's own independent manner. Xo impartial critic can doubt 
that customs and usages established in the time of the writer have 
sometimes been transferred by him to an earlier period. In 1 Chron. 
xvi., a Psalm of praise is represented as sung in the time of David 
which was probably in liturgical use at the time of the Chronist, but 
is taken from Psal. cv. 1 — 15., Psal. xcvi., Psal. cvii. 1., cvi. 47, 48., 
with a number of verbal alterations. These Psalms Hengstenberg 
himself admits were not written by David, maintaining that the 
author of Chronicles formed his composition out of them as they 
were sung in his day most frequently and with the greatest relish. 
It is preposterous, however, to assmne with him, that the description 
of the service which took place at the introduction of the ark of 
the covenant in 1 Chron. xvi. terminates before the Psalm- piece 
is given, and therefore no use was made of the Psalm-piece at this 
service. 1 Such an idea introduces inexplicable confusion into the 
chapter. We may also refer to 1 Chron. xxix. 4. ; 2 Chron. xv. 2 — 
7., xvi. 7 — 9., xxiv. 20., xxv. 7 — 9., xxviii. 9 — 11., as indicating less 
definite or exact sources than usual. 

In some instances the writer may have followed tradition, in con- 
sequence of which vagueness and exaggeration appear. To this head 
probably belongs 1 Chron. xxi. 25., where it is related that David 
gave Oman, for the place of a threshing-floor, 600 shekels of gold by 
Aveight ; whereas in 2 Sam. xxiv. 24., he merely gave 50 shekels of 
silver. The two places cannot be reconciled by any such expedient 
1 Commentary on the Psalms, English translation, vol. ill. p. 271. 



686 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

as that of Keil. We may also instance the numbers in 1 Chron. 
xxi. 5., viz. 1,100,000 and 470,000, which cannot be brought into 
harmony with those in the parallel place (2 Sam. xxiv. 9.), and which 
do not agree well with the narrative in 1 Chron. xxvii. 1 — 15., since 
the existence of an army numbering about 300,000 is implied ; which 
is too large for the country. 

In other instances the text of Chronicles has suffered corruption. 
This is especially the case in relation to numbers. Copyists having 
different methods of marking them fell into mistakes. As letters 
were often used to designate them, these letters were confounded 
with others. Examples occur in 1 Chron. xviii. 4. compared with 
2 Sam. viii. 4. ; 2 Chron. iii. 15. and iv. 5. compared with 1 Kings, 
vii. 15. and 26. ; 1 Chron. xi. 11. compared with 2 Sam. xxiii. 8. ; 
1 Chron. xxi. 12. compared with 2 Sam. xxiv. 13. ; 2 Chron. ix. 25. 
compared with 1 Kings iv. 26. Other causes have also led to cor- 
ruptions in the text, as has been shown by Movers, to whom we refer 
the reader for a copious discussion and enumeration of all passages. 1 
How hastily discrepancies between the Chronicles and earlier his- 
tories have been converted by the negative critics into contradictions, 
may be seen from the elaborate vindication of all the passages adduced 
by De Wette, undertaken by Keil. 2 We could only wish that the 
critic had not carried his apologetic tone and attempt to an un- 
warranted extent, resorting to expedients which are arbitrary. For 
it cannot be denied that real contradictions exist between the Chro- 
nicles and the earlier books in a variety of passages. An example 
occurs in 2 Chron. viii. 18. where it is related that Hiram sent the 
ships and servants that had knowledge of the sea; whereas in 1 Kings 
ix. 27. it is merely stated that Hiram sent servants, Solomon himself 
having built the ships at Eziongeber. It is just possible that the ships 
may have been transported across land to Eziongeber, or that they 
sailed round Africa ; but it is very unlikely. Besides, the 450 talents 
in Chronicles do not agree with the 420 in Kings. Another example 
is found in 1 Chron. xix. 18. compared with 2 Sam. x. 18., where the 
numbers disagree, the former having 40,000 foot-soldiers, the latter 
40,000 cavalry. 

Do we then assume that in all cases where real contradictions exist, 
the text is corrupt ? We dare not go so far as this, else arbitrary 
conjecture would be carried to an excessive degree in relation to the 
books before us. Some of them appear to be original. This is 
allowed by the most strenous defenders of the writer of Chronicles, 
Havernick and Keil. Thus both concede a mistake in 2 Chron. xx. 
36. compared with 1 Kings x. 22. ; for whereas in the latter place 
ships of Tarshish denote large vessels, such as were built for com- 
merce with Tarshish, here intended to sail to Ophir ; in the former, 
they are said to be ships to go to Tarshish, which does not agree with 
the statement that they were built at Eziongeber. 

On the whole, we believe that the Chronicles are inferior to the 
books of Samuel and Kings in regard to historical materials. Hence, 
when the accounts clash with one another, the latter are commonly 
! Kritische Untcrsuchungcn, \\. s. w. § 4. 2 Einlcitung, p. 499. et seqq. 



On the Books of Chronicles. 687 

preferable. But this fact does not take away their value, which is 
inestimable for the Hebrew history. The result of a formal compa- 
rison between the parallel accounts is highly favourable to the credi- 
bility of the Chronicles, provided doctrinal prejudices be suppressed, 
and an impartial estimate carefully deduced. 

The historical character of the books, in the historical accounts 
which are peculiar to them, is equally credible and true. It is quite 
analogous to that of the parallel sections. Here, also, weighty accu- 
sations have been advanced by De Wette and others against the 
writer. Improbabilites, exaggerations, and fictitious circumstances 
have been attributed to him. But the majority of them have been 
successfully turned aside by Movers, Havernick, and Keil. The last 
writer has undertaken to answer De Wette particulai'ly. If it be 
recollected that the Levitical priesthood and the public service of 
God are specially brought into view by the writer of Chronicles — 
that Jehovah's displeasure with idolatrous Israel, and interference 
on behalf of Judah are designedly depicted — that pious kings 
evincing appropriate zeal for the glory of God are commended 
and their efforts approved, while the ruinous effect of idolatrous 
practices is adduced — some phenomena which have awakened sus- 
picion against the writer will cease to do so. We do not deny the 
existence of various things which have not been satisfactorily ex- 
plained, and appear to be incapable of solution on any other ground 
than one unfavourable to the accuracy of the writer. Nor can con- 
tradictions between various statements be ignored, such as 1 Chron. 
xxiii. 7. and vi. 17. But these are few, and form exceptions to 
the general method. It is a curious feature, that the author's par- 
tiality for genealogical lists goes so far as to induce a repetition, on 
suitable occasions, of such as had been already given. Comp. 1 Chron. 
viii. 29—38. with ix. 35—44.; ix. 2—17. with Neh. xi. 3—19.; 
Ezra ii. with Neh. vii. 6 — 73. 

Many reasons combine to show that Chronicles and Ezra were 
originally one work, proceeding from the same author. The manner, 
diction, style, and tone, favour this view. 1 If it be correct, as we 
believe, then the book of Neheiniah was also a part of the same 
history, since Ezra and Neheiniah were formerly reckoned one 
book, and united as such. The opinion that Chronicles and Ezra 
were at first connected is favoured by the commencement of the 
apocryphal book of Ezra ; since the writer passes from the history in 
2 Chron. xxxvi. 21. to Ezra i. 1. Had he known of the separation 
between the books of Chronicles and Ezra, it would have prevented 
him from using the separated books as if they were one work. At 
the time of the LXX. the separation already existed, because the 
book of Ezra has a distinct title. Why the separation took place, it 
is now impossible to tell. It is likely that Ezra (and Nehemiah) was 
first placed in the collection of sacred historical books ; and that, 
some time after, the portion containing the present Chronicles was 
taken and appended as the last book, which its position in the Ha- 
giographa, as the closing work, favours. It was neglected for some 

1 See Dillmanu in Herzog's Encyclopseclie, art. Chronik. 



688 Introduction to the Old Testament 

time, because it coincided so much with the books of Samuel and 
Kings. When thus affixed in the canonical list, the last two verses 
in 2 Chron. xxxvi., which already stood at the beginning of Ezra, 
were repeated, to remind the reader, by the abrupt termination, that 
the continuation of the narrative was to be found elsewhere. In this 
way we explain, with Ewald 1 and Bertheau 2 , the identity of the 
close of the Chronicles and commencement of Ezra. 

This opinion of the connection originally existing between 
Chronicles and Ezra, as parts of one work by the same writer, is 
confirmed by the prevailing belief of the Jews that Ezra wrote both. 
The Talmud says that Ezra wrote his work and the genealogies (in 
the Chronicles) 3 )b nj>, i. e. as far as the word V?! in 2 Chron. xxi. 2. 



CHAP. IX. 

ON THE BOOK OF EZRA. 



We have already seen that the book of Ezra once included Nehe- 
miah as a part of it, the Jews counting them but one volume. It is 
impossible to tell when they were first separated. Even after they 
had been thus divided, they were called the two books of Ezra, a 
division which is recognised by the Greek and Latin churches. 

The book contains a narrative of the most memorable occurrences 
in the post-exile history of the Jews, from their return out of capti- 
vity under Zerubbabel and Joshua, till the arrival of Ezra in Jeru- 
salem, and the reformatory measures set on foot by him in the new 
colony. The order is chronological, according to the reigns of the 
Persian kings. The book consists of two principal divisions, as 
follows. 

1. The history of the first return from the Babylonish captivity, 
in the first year of Cyrus, till the completion and dedication of the 
new temple, in the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes. (ch. i. — vi.) 

II. The history of the second return, under Ezra the priest, in the 
seventh year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, with the putting away of 
the heathen wives, (vii. — x.) Of subdivisions we notice the fol- 
lowing : — 

1 The edict of Cyrus permitting the Jews to return into Judea 
and rebuild the temple, with an account of the people who first re- 
turned under the leadership of Zerubbabel, and of their offerings 
towards rebuilding the temple, (i. ii.) 

2. The building commenced, (iii.) 

3. Hindrances from the Samaritans, (iv.) 

4. The temple finished in the sixth year of Darius Hystaspes, by 
the aid of a decree issued in the second year of his reign, and dedi- 
cated, (v. vi.) 

5. The departure of Ezra from Babylon with a commission from 
Artaxerxes Longimanus. (vii.) 

1 Geschichte, u. s. w., vol. i. pp. 253, 254. 

2 Die Biicher der Chronik. u. s. w., Einleitung, p. xxi. 

3 Baba Bathra, cap. i. fol. 15. col. 1. 



On the Book of Ezra. 689 

6. Account of his companions, and arrival at Jerusalem, (viii.) 

7. Narrative of the reformation effected by him. (ix. x.) 

In the first part there is a long section in the Chaldee dialect con- 
taining the letters of the opponents of the Jews to the Persian kings 
Artaxerxes and Darius, with the answers of those monarchs, the con- 
tinuation, completion, and dedication of the building, (iv. 8 — vi. 18.). 
The second part contains a smaller Chaldee section (vii. 12 — 26.), the 
commission of Artaxerxes to Ezra. 

With regard to the unity and independence of the work, Keil 1 
and others suppose that not only the first part of it, but the whole, as 
now existing, constitutes an united book, the author of the remainder 
having incorporated the section iv. 8— vi. 18. without alteration in 
his work, and made it a part of his own narrative. This appears to 
be favoured by the formula of transition with which the second part 
begins, viz., now after these things (Ezra vii. 1.), by the connected 
succession of the history, and by the similarity of style in both divi- 
sions. To this view of the matter there are weighty objections, as 
will be seen from the following attempt to analyse the contents. 

In the first part two original documents are incorporated, viz. the 
second chapter, which occurs again in Neh. vii. 6 — 73. ; and iv. 8 — 
vi. 18. These are distinguished by the use of the Chaldee dialect. 
It has been inferred from v. 4. by Movers 2 that iv. 8 — vi. 18. is the 
fragment of a history composed in Chaldee by a contemporary of 
Zerubbabel, since the use of the first person occurs there. But the 
passage is not a valid proof of the writer being an eyewitness (comp. 
Josh. v. 6.); on the contrary, the mention of Artaxerxes in vi. 14. 
speaks for a later time. Havernick 3 is compelled to regard vi. 14. 
as an interpolation, arbitrarily, lest it should invalidate his view of 
the general authorship. Keil as arbitrarily accounts for the name 
Artaxerxes in vi. 14. as having been appended by Ezra out of grati- 
tude for the great gifts made by Artaxerxes to the temple. We 
believe that it cannot be reconciled with the supposition of the writer 
being an eyewitness. 

The second part is closely connected with the first by the com- 
mencing formula in vii. 1., but there are internal features which 
distinguish it. In the section vii. 27 — ix. 15., where Ezra uses 
the first person, he himself was the writer, with which may be joined 
the Chaldee document in vii. 12 — 26. It is doubtful however whether 
vii. 1 — 11. was written by him. The third person, not the first, is 
employed in it ; and in the sixth verse, Ezra is spoken of as a ready 
scribe in the law of Moses, which honorary appellation he would 
scarcely have applied to himself. Nor is it very likely that he would 
have written in the tenth verse " For Ezra had prepared his heart 
to seek the law of the Lord and to do it, and to teach in Israel sta- 
tutes and judgments." These verses probably belong to the compiler 
or redactor. When Keil argues that in the first seven verses of the 
seventh chapter Ezra must speak of himself in the third person 4 , he 

1 Einleitimg, u. s. w., § 149. p. 516. 2 Kritische Untersuchungen, u. s. w. p. 15. 

3 Einleit. ii. 1. p. 293. 4 Einleit. p. 517. 

VOL. II. Y Y 



i 



690 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

asserts what has no foundation. The tenth chapter is doubtful as to 
authorship. In it Ezra is spoken of in the third person. It was 
probably written by some contemporary. 

Attempts have been made to neutralise all significancy belonging 
to this change of person by appealing to examples of the same in the 
prophetical writings, as in Ezek. i. 1 — 3., vi. 1., vii. 1. 8. ; Jer. xx. 1. 
&c. compared with 7. &c, xxi. 1., xxviii. 1 — 5., xxxii. 1 — 8. ; Hos. 
i. 2, 3., iii. 1. So also in Habakkuk and Daniel. But the analogy does 
not hold good, because the language of history is different from that 
of prophecy. What was allowable and usual in the latter, was not 
therefore appropriate to the former. Hence Havernick assumes an 
imitation of the prophetic usage by Ezra, which is altogether impro- 
bable. To appeal to our own writings for instances of a similar enallage 
personarum., as Bialloblotzsky does 1 , is also beside the mark. Rhe- 
torical figures are out of place in the composition of Hebrew annals. 
The greater part of the second part was composed by Ezra. A diver- 
sity of expression between it and the first division is alone sufficient 
to show that Ezra did not write or put together the whole. Thus in 
the first part it is always the law of Moses (iii. 2., vi. 18.); but in the 
second, the law of the God of heaven; the laivs of God; the command- 
ments of the Lord (except vii. 6.). (Comp. vii. 11, 12. 14. 21. 25., x. 3.) 
Again, the narrative in the first person distinguishes the second part 
from the first. As the hand of the Lord my God ivas upon me (vii. 
28. comp. viii. 18. 22. 31.); the eye of their God was upon the elders, 
&c. (v. 5.) 2 Keil's replies to these diversities are insufficient. 3 

Many circumstances unite to show, that the same writer composed 
and compiled the books of Chronicles and Ezra. We have already 
stated, indeed, that they were originally parts of the same historical 
work. The following are the chief points of analogy between them. 

The general manner of both is the same. There is a predilection 
for compilation, for genealogical registers and public documents. A 
similar Levitical character also appears ; while we meet with the 
same favourite expressions. This is especially exemplified in chap, 
i., iii., iv. 1—7., vi. 16—22. Apart from 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22, 23., 
which is almost identical with Ezra i. 1 — 3., Ave meet with to offer 
burnt-offerings thereon as it is*tvritten in the lata of Moses (Ezra iii. 2.): 
compare 1 Chron. xvi. 40. A similar phrase also occurs in Ezra iii. 
3. : compare 2 Chron. xiii. 11. That willingly offered a free-will 
offering unto the Lord (Ezra iii. 5.) : compare 1 Chron. xxix. 5. &c, 
9. 14. 17. ; Nehem. xi. 2. To set fomoard the icork, Sfc. (Ezra iii. 8.): 
compare 1 Chron. xxiii. 4. &c. After the ordinance of David (Ezra 
iii. 10.) : compare 2 Chron. xxix. 27. and elsewhere. For he is good, 
for his mercy endureth for ever (Ezra iii. 11.) : compare 1 Chron. xvi. 
41., 2 Chron. v. 13., and elsewhere. Shouted aloud with joy (Ezra 
iii. 12.) : compare 1 Chron. xv. 16. The verb translated to lay the 
foundation of (Ezra iii. 11.): compare 2 Chron. iii. 3. The phrase 
rendered afar off (Ezra iii. 13.) : compare 2 Chron. xxvi. 15. As 

1 In Kitto's Cyclopedia, art. Ezra. 

2 See De Wette, Einleit. u. s. w. p. 289. 8 Einleit. p. 518. 



On the Book of Ezra. 691 

one man (Ezra iii. 1., Nekem. viii. 1.) : compare 2 Chron. v. 13. See 
also Ezra ii. 64., iii. 9., vi. 20. 1 

As a good part of the book proceeded from Ezra himself, and 
other portions, such as the tenth chapter, from persons contemporary 
with the events narrated, there is no ground for impugning the cre- 
dibility of the whole. The only modern writer who has ventured to 
make an objection to the trustworthiness of the accounts is Zunz, 
who imagines that the narrative in the first chapter is an extract 
from Ezra v. 13 — 16. and vi. 3 — 5. ; and that the numbers in i. 9 — 
11. of the gold and silver vessels belonging to the house of the Lord 
are exaggerated. Surely these are mere arbitrary conjectures with- 
out foundation. Nor is the assertion of the same critic respecting 
the improbability of Ezra going into the chamber of Johanan the son 
of Eliashib, although that high priest lived long after Neherniah 
(Ezra x. 6.), of any consequence, because it presupposes that Johanan 
was the high priest of that name, Avhereas he may have been a son of 
the Eliashib spoken of in Nehemiah xiii. 7. 

The events narrated in the book occupy a period of about seventy- 
nine years, — under the reigns of Cyrus seven years, Cambyses (called 
Ahasuerus iv. 6.) seven years five months, Smerdis (called Artaxerxes 
iv. 7.) seven months, Darius Hystaspes thirty-six years, Artaxerxes 
Longimanus (in the eighth year of whose reign the record ceases) 
twenty-nine years (including the twenty-one years of Xerxes's reign 
preceding, which is passed over in Ezra), amounting to eighty years. 
The book has no marked conclusion, because it originally formed the 
first part of the book of Nehemiah, not because the similarity of 
their contents caused them to be placed together. 

In Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, a remarkable 
passage occurs respecting the typical import of the passover. Ezra is 
cited as addressing the people before the celebration of the passover, 
and expounding to them the mystery of it as clearly relating to Christ; 
Justin concluding that at an early date the words were expunged from 
the Hebrew copies by the Jews. The passage is this: " And Ezra said 
to the people, This passover is our saviour and our refuge. And if ye 
understand, and it enter into your heart that we are about to humble 
him in the sign, and after this shall trust in him, this place shall not 
be made desolate for ever, saith the Lord of hosts. But if ye will 
not believe on him nor hear his preaching, ye shall be a laughing- 
stock to the Gentiles." 2 This passage, which Justin was so credulous 
as to suppose that the Jews expunged from the Hebrew, was written 
by some Christian, and early got into copies of the LXX., where 
it is inserted at Ezra vi. 21. It occurs in Latin in Lactantius 3 ; 
but with some variation. Doubtless it was never in the original 
Hebrew. It is remarkable that any critic should be disposed to 
admit its authenticity. Yet Whitaker 4 and A. Clarke 5 grasp at it. 

1 Conip. Zunz's Gottcsdienstlichen Vortrage, u. s. w., p. 21. et seqq., and Moyers's 
Kritische Untersuchungen, u. s. w., p. 17. et seqq. 

2 Opp. by Otto, vol. i. p. ii. pp. 247, 248. 2d edit. 3 Institut. div. iv. c. 18. 

4 Origin of Arianism, p. 305. 5 Discourse on the Eucharist, p. 83. 

Y Y 2 



692 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

CHAP. X. 

THE BOOK OF NEHEMIAH. 

This book of Nehemiah bears the title njjprjj n5% the words or 
transactions of Nehemiah, and was once connected with and formed a 
part of Ezra. Hence some ancient writers called it the second book 
of Ezra or Esdras ; and even regarded that learned scribe as the 
author. At an unknown time it was separated from Ezra, and had 
the name of Nehemiah prefixed to it, as it has in all Hebrew Bibles 
now. It contains a narrative of transactions, in which Nehemiah bore 
a principal part, relative to the rebuilding of Jerusalem and reforms 
of the people accomplished by him. The book is most conveniently- 
divided into three sections, as follows : — 

I. In the first Nehemiah describes his efforts to strengthen Jeru- 
salem, and the increase of its population, (chap. i. — vii.) 

II. In the second, there is an account of the religious solemnities 
conducted by Ezra the priest, at which Nehemiah appears merely as 
civil governor, (chap. viii. — x.) 

III. In the third, we have different lists, and a narrative of other 
doings of Nehemiah. 

These again may be subdivided as follows: — 

1. The departure of Nehemiah, cupbearer to Artaxerxes Longi- 
manus, from Shushan, furnished with a royal commission to rebuild 
the walls of Jerusalem, and his arrival there, (i. ii. 1 — 11.) 

2. Account of the building of the walls and gates of the city not- 
withstanding the obstacles interposed by the Samaritans, (ii. 12 — 20. 
iii. — vii. 4.) 

3. A register of the exiles who first returned from Babylon ; and 
an account of oblations at the temple, (vii. 5 — 73.) 

4. A solemn reading of the law by Ezra at the feast of tabernacles, 
(viii.) 

5. A solemn fast and repentance of the people ; and renewal of 
the covenant with Jehovah, (ix. x.) 

6. A list of those who dwelt at Jerusalem and in other cities ; re- 
gister and succession of the high priests, chief Levites, and principal 
singers, (xi. xii, 1 — 26.) 

7. The dedication of the city walls, (xii. 27—47.) 

8. The correction of abuses by Nehemiah, which had crept in 
during his absence, (xiii.) 

The first section from i. 1 — vii. 5. evidently proceeded from Nehe- 
miah himself. This appears from the relation of his deeds being in 
the first person, as well as certain phrases and favourite expressions 
peculiar to him, which occur more than once. (ii. 8.: comp. ver. 18., 
ii. 12. with vii. 5.; ii. 19. with iii. 33.; iii. 36. &c. with v. 13.; 
v. 3 9. with vi. 14.) With this is connected a genealogical register 
which he himself found written, vii. 6 — 73. to DD"^?. The section 
vii. 73., beginning with " And when the seventh month came," &c. 
to x. 40., is distinguished from the preceding in various ways, by 



On the Book of Nehemiah. 693 

manner, style, disappearance of Nehemiah from the foreground, and 
indeed all the peculiarities distinguishing this writer which appear in 
the first seven chapters. The manner of writing is different ; for 
example, Nehemiah's person recedes, " Nehemiah which is the Tir- 
shatha " (viii. 9., x. 2.); whereas he is elsewhere styled governor (v. 
14, 15. 18.). To account for this in such a way as to comport with 
the Nehemiah-authorship of the present section, Keil remarks, that 
Nehemiah being a civil governor under the Persian king was not 
competent to conduct the ecclesiastical solemnities which belonged to 
the priest and scribe Ezra, but could only appear in subordination to 
Ezra (viii. 9.), and set his seal first to the covenant (x. 1.); and, that 
he is merely called the Tirshatha in this section, while he terms 
himself governor elsewhere, is not strange when we consider that 
the latter merely expresses official position, the former being, on the 
contrary, the official title of the Persian governor of Judea, which is 
appropriate in this official act. 1 This reply is insufficient and unsatis- 
factory. The distinction drawn between the two words is artificial 
and arbitrary ; while the force of the other part of the argument lies 
not so much in Ezra appearing most prominent, but in the manner in 
which Nehemiah, the representative of the Persian king, sinks his 
personality, even when it appears from the record itself that he bore 
no inconsiderable part in the religious ceremonies described, by the 
side of Ezra the priest. That he should occupy a subordinate posi- 
tion to Ezra is not the point ; that he should at once almost disappear 
is certainly a circumstance remarkable, which Keil's reply fails to 
account for. Again, the names Jehovah, Adonai, Elohim are used 
promiscuously (viii. 1. 6. 8, 9. &c. 14. 16. &c.) ; whereas, except i. 5. 
11., iv. 8., Elohim is the prevailing word in Nehemiah; particularly 
God of heaven, (i. 4., ii. 4. 20.) Equally insufficient is Keil's reply 
here also, which resolves the variation in the use of these names into 
the nature of the subject, each being suited to the topic treated of. 
After showing that Elohim is employed in i. — vii. more than any 
other appellation, he accounts for Jehovah, Adonai, and other predi- 
cates of Deity in vii. 73. — x. 40. by their adaptation to the descrip- 
tion of liturgical acts, and by imitation of the language of the Penta- 
teuch and Psalms. 2 But the admission of Nehemiah praying differ- 
ently in relation to these appellations (in chap, i.) from the prayers 
of the Levites (chap, ix.), which Keil is compelled to make, is 
adverse to his view. It is wholly arbitrary to suppose that Nehemiah, 
in describing the prayers of the Levites and his own supplications, 
should employ the names of Deity differently, because the Levites 
did not follow the language of the older sacred books and he himself 
did. Doubtless had Nehemiah been the narrator of both, the lan- 
guage of both would have been the same. And if he employs more 
suitable appellations of Deity in the case of religious acts, why does 
he employ Jehovah and cognate appellations at all in his description 
of civil matters, in the first seven chapters ? 

The words B\?}P, Dn'n, nobles, rulers, occur in ii. 16., iv. 8. 13., 

1 Einleitung, p. 522. * Ibid. p. 523. 

TV 3 



694 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

v. 7. 17., vi. 17., vii. 5., xii. 40., xiii. 11., but not in viii. — x., where 
rrinx ^Kp, heads of the fathers, is the corresponding expression (viii. 
13.). This cannot be accounted for with Keil by the different subjects 
in i. — vii. and viii. — x. 

In consequence of the difference of style in i. — vii. and viii. — x. 40., 
both Havernick J and Kleinert 2 candidly allow that Nehemiah, who 
wrote the former, could not have written the latter also, leaving Keil 
alone to hold the untenable view of identity in authorship. But when 
Havernick supposes that Ezra wrote viii. — x., with whom Kleinert 
agrees so far as to ascribe ix. and x. to Ezra, he maintains what is very 
improbable. Internal evidence disproves the idea. The section in 
question could not have proceeded either from Ezra or a contemporary. 
It was evidently of later origin, as De Wette has shown 3 ; nor do the 
arguments adduced on the other side by Keil avail to shake the 
strength of the conclusion. We believe that vii. 73 — x. 40. proceeded 
from the writer or compiler of the whole book — the same person 
who put Ezra and Chronicles in their present state. The final re- 
dactor of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah was one and the same. 

The eleventh chapter, containing a list of the inhabitants of Jeru- 
salem, is connected with vii. 5., and was probably written by 
Nehemiah himself. On the other hand, xii. 1 — 26. is very loosely 
joined to what precedes. It gives a list of priests and Levites, 
reaching down to Jaddua the high priest, who was contemporary with 
Alexander the Great (10, 11.), as has been inferred from Josephus. 
(Antiqq. xi. 7, 8.) This mention of Jaddua has occasioned much 
perplexity to those who hold that Nehemiah wrote the entire book, or 
even this section. Hence various ways of escaping from the diffi- 
culty have been devised. Vitringa and Rambach conjectured that the 
10th and 11th verses are later additions to the text, having been ori- 
ginally a marginal annotation. This, however, is arbitrary. Others 
as Havernick, and after him Keil, attempt to show that it is just pos- 
sible that Nehemiah wrote these verses, if he lived to be an old man, 
so as to see the year B.C. 370, and if Jaddua had then entered on his 
office and afterwards filled it for about forty years, i.e. till B.C. 332. 
All this is too precarious and conjectural to appear in any degree 
probable. In addition to such methods of escaping from the difficulty, 
Kleinert and Keil have attempted to show that the account of Jose- 
phus respecting Alexander the Great coming to Jerusalem when 
Jaddua was high priest, abounds in historical and chronological errors. 
But it is more likely that Josephus knew the true circumstances 
respecting the meeting of Alexander and Jaddua, than these two 
critics. He had much better opportunities than they. That Nehemiah 
could not have written this part (xii. 1 — 26.), appears from the 26th 
verse, where we find, " In the days of Nehemiah the governor, and of 
Ezra the priest, the scribe," w T ords which could hardly have pro- 
ceeded from Nehemiah himself. Besides, it is improbable that the 
list of the twenty-two priests which appears in the book three times, 
viz. x. 2 — 8.; xii. 1 — 7.; xii. 12 — 21., each time with important 

1 Einleit, ii. 1. p. 306. 

2 In the Dorpat. theol. Beitrr. p. 300. et seqq. 3 Einleitung, p. 292. 



On the Book of Nehemiah. 695 

variations, proceeded from Nehemiah. This is specially unlikely in 
chapter xii., where the list is given twice in almost immediate suc- 
cession. Moved by these considerations, Nagelsbach 1 resorts, with 
others, to the hypothesis of interpolation, and is inclined to follow 
Vaihinger 2 in supposing verses 10, 11. and 22, 23. to have pro- 
ceeded from the same hand. But why should not the entire section 
be assigned to another than Nehemiah ? We ascribe it all to a later 
author. 

The portion in xii. 27 — 43. appears to have been written by Nehe- 
miah himself. It contains an account of the dedication of the wall, 
and seems out of its proper place ; as it belongs to vii. 1 — 4., where 
the completion of the wall is mentioned. Hence it forms the proper 
conclusion of the portion i. — vii. 5., which was composed by Nehe- 
miah himself. 

Again, xii. 44 — xiii. 3. was not written by Nehemiah, but appears 
to have proceeded from the compiler or redactor of the entire book. 
Internal evidence, especially the 47th verse, shows that the writer lived 
considerably after Nehemiah himself. It was inserted without doubt 
with the object of filling up the memoirs written by Nehemiah; 
since xiii. 4. to the end proceeded from the latter. 

If these observations be correct, the work in its present form did 
not come from the hand of Nehemiah. Notices of important trans- 
actions written by him have been largely used in compiling it ; the 
redactor himself supplemented and arranged them. 

We have already seen that Nehemiah was once incorporated with 
Ezra as one book. The two were at first connected. This is a strong 
presumption at least that they were written by one and the same 
person. It has also been stated that Ezra was once a part of the 
Chronicles, the third and last part, the Chronicles forming the first 
and second parts of the work. The manner, style, diction, and tone 
of the three, in addition to other considerations, are highly favourable 
to this conclusion. They bear the impress of the same Levitical person 
or compiler. 

But Keil objects to this view, maintaining that each was at first a 
separate work, Ezra himself having written the Chronicles and the 
book which bears his name, while Nehemiah composed the history 
called after him. De Wette is also disinclined to identify the compiler 
of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. As to Keil's statements in reply 
to the united authorship of the three, they are so insignificant as to 
call for no remarks on the other side. They may be safely left in 
their own weakness. De Wette's are more worthy of attention. But 
they are directed against the peculiarities of Ewald's hypothesis, 
which attempts to define the method in which the compiler of Ezra 
and Nehemiah proceeded. 

More recently Nagelsbach 3 has contended, that they did not pro- 
ceed from the same person. After endeavouring to invalidate the 
considerations adduced, chiefly by Bertheau, and insisting upon the 

1 Article Ezra and Nehemiah, in Herzog's Encyclopjedie. 

2 Article Darius, in Herzog's Encyclopaedic. 

' In Herzog's Encyclopsedie, art. Ezra und Nehemiah. 

T Y 4 



693 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

words at the end of Chronicles and beginning of Ezra as evidence 
that Ezra was written before the Chronicles by an earlier author (where 
he reasons on the supposition that the original writer himself separated 
the three books), the critic refers, after De Wette, to the fact that 
the Chronist repeats the original document, Ezra ii., in Nehemiah vii. 
6 — 73., neither altering it in such a way as to make it appear a new 
document, nor having it so uniform as one might expect from the 
same author in the same work, and asks, Where in the Chronist can 
we lind a similar example of a document being adopted and used in 
the way that the compiler did with Neh. i. — vii. ? The commencing 
words of Nehemiah announce a new book so evidently that no 
Hebrew writer could have taken them into his work, especially if he 
was about to interpolate the document so designated with a peculiar 
insertion, as the Chronist is said to have done by Neh. viii. — x. 

The commencing words of Nehemiah are intended to show that the 
compiler at this place took what had been written by Nehemiah. He 
had not done so before ; and therefore they are in their proper place. 
It differs little from this to §ay with Nagelsbach they must have 
formed the beginning of a new book. When the critic speaks of in- 
terrupting Nehemiah's own writing contained in chapters i. — vii. and 
xi., by the intercalation of viii. — x. as inconsistent with the intention 
of one who meant to give Nehemiah's own accounts at chap. i. &c. 
&c, his argument would have force if vii. 6 — 73. had not preceded 
chapter viii. But as an interruption had already taken place by 
the insertion of an Aramaean document, there was nothing unlikely 
or perplexing in simply appending to vii. 6 — 73., chapters viii. ix. 
and x. Besides, there is no ground for supposing that Nehemiah 
left what he wrote or compiled in one connected piece. Rather did 
he write on separate rolls, and leave separate pieces. And there is as 
little ground for thinking that the commencing terms of Neh. i. 
intimate any design on the part of the Chronist or general compiler 
to give all that Nehemiah wrote continuously, not in pieces. 

Again Nagelsbach asks, on what ground could the Chronist have 
given the list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem after the exile, in 
1 Chron. ix., where it is not in its place, and also in Neh. xi., where 
it is appropriate ? As there is no reason for this procedure, he con- 
cludes that Neh. xi. is not a part of the same work to which 
1 Chron. ix. belongs as an integral portion. Here the critic himself 
supplies an answer. The author of a large and comprehensive work, 
like the Chronicles, which reaches to the exile, after he had set down 
the tribes of Israel, and last of all, Benjamin and the house of Saul, 
might have wished to give a list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, 
which lay in Benjamin, and since he had none belonging to the time 
there described, i. e. Saul's, he appended the post-exile list. But 
would he have done so, asks Nagelsbach, if he intended to reproduce 
the same list at its proper time and in the right place ? We think 
not. But surely it is unlikely that in compiling so large a work as 
Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, the redactor had one consistent plan in 
his mind ; or proceeded in any other method than the putting of piece 
to piece in a certain way ; unconcerned about repetition, provided it 



On the Book of Esther. 697 

could serve the purpose of elucidation. He lias elsewhere repeated 
1 Chron. viii. 29 — 40. and ix. 35 — 44., where all the difference of 
case between that and the present example is neutralised by the im- 
mediate vicinity of the repetition. It need not be assumed that ichen 
the compiler first wrote the list, he intended to give it again. Having 
written it once, he was not scrupulous about its second insertion. 

It is probable, as Ewald supposes 1 , that the books of Ezra and 
Nehemiah were separated, before being received into the canon, 
because the history of new Jerusalem must have been of special im- 
portance to the later Jews ; whereas the books of Samuel and Kings 
seemed to suffice for the history of old Jerusalem. The reply of 
Nagelsbach to this could be easily turned aside were it at all needful 
to do so. 

The unity of the books of Ezra and Nehemiah is sufficiently 
attested. The Talmud, Masorah, the lists of Old Testament books 
given by the fathers of the Christian church, the Cod. Alexandrinus 
and Cod. Frederico- August, of the LXX., call them one book, as 
Bertheau 2 has pointed out. The apocryphal book 3rd Esdras also 
appears to have found the three, Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, 
united as one ; for after 2 Chron. xxxv. and xxxvi., all Ezra and then 
JSeh. vii. 73 — viii. 13. follows. 3 Nagelsbach's attempt to invalidate 
these authorities is of no force. 

It is not easy to ascertain the space of time which the administra- 
tion of Nehemiah at Jerusalem occupied. Some reckon it at thirty-six 
years ; which is probably too long. He came first to Jerusalem in the 
20th year of Ai'taxerxes, B.C. 444, and remained there twelve years. 
(v. 14.) Accordingly, he returned to Babylon B. C. 432. How long- 
he stayed again at the court of Artaxerxes is uncertain (xiii. 6, 7.) ; 
but Havernick 4 has shown that it could not have been above nine years, 
and supposes him to return about B.C. 424. The duration of his 
second administration probably lasted about ten years, i.e. till towards 
the close of the reign of Darius Xothus (xii. 22.), or B.C. 413 or 412. 
Josephus says that he lived to be an old man (Antiqq. xi. 5, 6.). 
Thus his administration lasted perhaps about twenty-four or twenty- 
five years. The book that bears his name was not written, or rather 
compiled, till the time of Alexander the Great. 



CHAP. XL 

THE BOOK OF ESTHER. 



The book of Esther derives its name from the person whose history 
it principally relates. It is called by the Jews Megillah Esther — the 
volume of Esther. The contents may be distributed into two parts, 
as follows. 

1 Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol i. p. 253. et seqq. 

2 Die Buecher der Chronik, p. xxii. 3 See Zunz, p. 28. 
* Einleit. ii. 1. pp. 324, 325. 



698 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

I. The promotion of Esther ; and the service rendered the Persian 
king by Mordecai, in discovering a plot against his life. (ch. i. ii.) 

II. The advancement of Haman ; his evil designs against the Jews, 
and their entire overthrow, (iii. — x.) 

The story of the book is, that a Jewish maiden, Esther, a foster- 
daughter of Mordecai, found favour in the eyes of the Persian king 
Ahasuerus, after he had divorced his queen Vashti, and was advanced 
to the dignity of queen. It relates how she and her uncle Mordecai 
frustrated the decree which Haman, a favourite of the monarch, had 
obtained for the extirpation of all the Jews in the empire ; how the 
feast of Purim was instituted to commemorate their deliverance ; and 
how Mordecai was advanced into the place of Haman. 

The scope of the history is clearly to describe the historical occa- 
sion and origin of the Purim- festival. 

The transactions recorded in the book relate to the time of Xerxes, 
according to the correct opinion of Scaliger, Drusius, Pfeiffer, 
Carpzov, Justi, Eichhorn, Jahn, Gesenius, Havernick, Winer, Baum- 
garten, and Keil. This agrees with the statement in i. 1., that his empire 
extended from India to Ethiopia ; and other historical circumstances 
concur. The character of Ahasuerus agrees with that of the tyrant 
Xerxes, as depicted by Herodotus, Justin, Strabo, &c. The de- 
scriptions in the book do not coincide so well either with Darius 
Hystaspes, for whom Ussher decided, or with Artaxerxes Longimanus, 
who is favoured by Josephus, the LXX., and the apocryphal addi- 
tions to the book of Esther, and is adopted as the monarch called 
Ahasuerus by Prideaux, Hales, and others. 

In regard to the time and author, opinions have been greatly 
divided. Augustine and others referred the book to Ezra; Eusebius, to 
some later but unknown author. The Pseudo-Philo(Chronographia) 
and R. Azarias thought that it was written at the request of Mor- 
decai by Joakim the high priest, son of Joshua. The Talmud assigns 
it to the men of the great synagogue. These, however, are gratuitous 
conjectures. Many think that it was composed by Mordecai, as 
Abenesra, Clement of Alexandria, Sanctius, Walther, Gerhard, 
Dannhauer, — or by Esther and him conjointly. The book does not 
represent the matter in such a light as that Mordecai was the writer, 
though De Wette thinks so ; for the inference cannot justly be drawn 
from ch. ix. 20. 23. 32. In the first two places the whole con- 
text shows that the language does not relate to the book itself, but to 
the circular letters which Mordecai sent to the Jews in all the pro- 
vinces of the Persian empire ; and in the third, where it is stated that 
the command of Esther was written in the book, the author merely 
intimates that his narrative was derived from a written source. A 
record of events called the book was in existence ; which record or 
document is not identified with the book of Esther. We look upon 
the ninth chapter as furnishing internal evidence of the fact, that the 
writer was not Mordecai ; especially ix. 19—27. It is now impossible 
to discover his name or profession. It is manifest, however, that he 
lived in Persia, because he appeals to the chronicles of the Kings of 
Media and Persia (x. 2.) ; because he exhibits an accurate knowledge 



On the Booh oj Esther. 699 

of Shushan and the relations of the Persian empire, as well as of 
Persian customs and manners (i. 1, 10. 14., ii. 3. 15. 21., iii. 1. 7. 
10. 12. 15., iv. 5. 11., v. 9., viii. 8. 14., ix. 6—10.); while his pic- 
ture of the principal personages, and careful presentation of names, 
attest his fidelity. This is confirmed by the absence of every refer- 
ence to Judah and Jerusalem, of the theocratic spirit, and even of the 
religious stand-point. The precise time in which he lived and wrote 
is matter of uncertainty. Havernick, Welte, and Keil suppose that 
he composed the work not long after the occurrences related in it 
took place, during the existence of the Persian empire, probably in 
the time of Artaxerxes. But this appears to us too early. The lan- 
guage points to a later period than that of Ezra and JMehemiah. Not 
only has it Persisms, but late words, forms, and expressions, as D^pJiOS, 
nobles, i. 3. ; D|J?1S, decree, i. 20. ; 10*3, palace, i. 5. ; y^,fine linen, i. 6. ; 
"ip|, crown, i. 11. ; ">£>$£, commandment, i. 15. ; I"I3JI, a garden, i. 5. ; "i|?*, 
honour, i. 20.; W#, marble, i. 6 H officers, i. 8.; ?S? 21 13, good with, 
■please, i. 19. Other phenomen -J&j been supposed to point to the 
period of the Ptolemy s and Seleuciuse long after the events took place. 
Persian customs are explained in i. 1. 13., viii. 8., a fact consistent with 
the composition of the book in Persia, provided a considerable space of 
time had intervened between the events and the writer's own genera- 
tion. 1 It is not a sufficient reply when Havernick 2 and others affirm, 
that this would not be remarkable even in a contemporary, because he 
wrote for Jews living in Palestine. In any case he must have written, 
at least in part, for those living in the Persian empire. Indeed, it is 
most likely that he wrote for them in the first instance. To affirm 
that he wrote solely or chiefly for Palestinian Jews is a mere hypo- 
thesis, and does not agree well with the absence of the religious spirit 
from the book. Another consideration advanced in favour of a date 
as late as the era of the Seleucidse, is the spirit of a bloodthirsty 
revenge and love of persecution seen in the book. To this, however, 
it is justly objected by Baumgarten 3 and Havernick, that the author 
himself entertains no such spirit, but depicts persons simply as they 
acted ; and therefore no criterion is furnished towards determining 
the age of the book. If it could be shown that the author has im- 
parted something of his own spirit to Esther, for example, when she 
is described as not contented with one avenging blow, but as obtaining 
from the king power to inflict a second (ix. 13.), the argument would 
be unassailable ; but as long as this cannot be shown, it is irrelevant. 
An important consideration in favour of the late date appears to us to 
be deducible from the absence of the religious spirit in the writer, or 
rather the absence of its manifestation. Had the writer lived soon 
after the events narrated, it is improbable that he would have omitted 
all mention of divine providence and the name of God ; because the 
religious feeling had not so far degenerated among the Jewish cap- 
tives who did not return to their own land with Zerubbabel, Ezra, 
and Nehemiah. An extraordinary value is also attached to fasting 
by Esther (iv. 16.), confirming the same thing. Forms are magnified, 

1 See De Wette's Einleitung, p. 297. 2 Einleit. ii. 1. p. 360. 

3 Do fide libri Esthers comment, hist. crit. p. 61. 



700 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

a sure sign of decaying spiritual life (iii. 2.). The longer the Jews 
lived in Persia, separated from their own brethren, the more assimi- 
lated would they be to the prevailing opinions and usages of the 
empire. The theocratic spirit would become less and less. Hence 
we suppose the lapse of a considerable period, from the time of Esther 
and Mordecai till that of the writer, when a sense of the old Jewish 
religion and attachment to the theocracy had sunk in the minds of 
the children and grandchildren of the Jewish captives. On the 
whole, therefore, there is no more likely age for the origin of the book 
than that of the Ptolemys and Seleucicke, which commenced 312 B.C. 
When we come to speak of the historical character of the book, 
various circumstances will serve to corroborate the view now taken. 
Josephus regarded it as the latest of the canonical books, and included 
it in the canon, which he looked upon as completed in the reign of 
Artaxerxes. 

The fact that the name of God never occurs in Esther, and that 
there is no allusion to the superintending providence of Jehovah 
amid deliverances of the Jewish people so remarkable and striking, 
has proved a stumbling-block to many. Whatever explanation of it 
be offered, the thing itself is apparent. The events described in the 
book are not looked at in a religious view by the writer ; or he has 
suppressed at least the manifestation of a theocratic and pious spirit. 
This is the more wonderful because Mordecai, Esther, and the other 
Jews show some piety and trust in God. (iii. 2. &c, iv. 1 — 3. 14. 16.) 
Baumgarten, Havernick, and Keil explain the fact in question by 
the circumstance that the writer did not wish to set forth the per- 
sonages of the history as more devout than they really were, nor the 
occurrences in a point of view which avouM have seemed strange to 
his contemporaries and foreign to the subject itself, inasmuch as 
Jehovah, the God of Israel, had not revealed himself among the 
people. Hence he contented himself with a simple narration of 
facts, without subjective reflection. This method of accounting for 
the phenomenon is unsatisfactory. How could the writer, if he were 
deeply penetrated by the Spirit of God, refrain from subjective re- 
flection ? How could he avoid the mention of Jehovah as the pre- 
server of the Jews, his peculiar people ? These questions are un- 
touched by the explanation. 

A better method of resolving the difficulty is that of Coquerel ', 
who supposes that the book is a translated extract from the memoirs 
of the reign of the Persian king Ahasuerus. The Asiatic sovereigns 
caused annals of their reign to be kept; and the book itself attests 
that Ahasuerus had such historical records, (ii. 23., vi. 1., x. 2.) If 
then it was necessary that the Jews should have a faithful narrative 
of their history under queen Esther, from what better source could 
they derive it than from the memoirs of the king her consort? In 
this manner various characteristics belonging to the book are ac- 
counted for ; and especially the absence of the name of God. If the 
author of an extract from the memoirs or chronicles of Ahasuerus 
had given it a more Jewish complexion, or spoken of the God of 
1 Biographie Sacree, torn, i. p. 361. et seqq. 



On the Book of Esther. 701 

Israel, he would have deprived his narrative of an internal character 
of truth. 

The ingenuity of this view is unquestionable. Yet it is a mere 
hypothesis. All that appears probable in it is that the author made 
use of Persian annals. That he confined himself to a bare extract 
from them, in another language, is unlikely. He did not translate 
so slavishly as to exclude the utterance of every religious feeling in 
himself. Had he made an extract from the Persian, as is supposed, 
he would have employed a much more degenerate and Persised form 
of the Hebrew language. 

Although the Jews venerate this book next to the Pentateuch, its 
historical character and credibility have been doubted or denied by 
many Christian critics since the reformation. To this they have 
been led by the difficulties and apparent improbabilities of the narra- 
tive. The circumstance of a national festival having been instituted 
in commemoration of the events described in the book, and which is 
mentioned already in the time of Judas Maccabams (2 Maccab. xv. 
36.), is a sufficient voucher for the principal event in the history. 
A national festival could not have been founded on a mere fable. 
Hence we must hold that the feast of Puriin originated in the manner 
described. 

One of the difficulties lies in identifying Ahasuerus with Xerxes. 
It is certain that Xerxes agrees better with the description of the 
Persian monarch given in the book of Esther than any other ; and 
therefore some critics have urged the circumstances connected with 
his person and reign which militate most against the hypothesis, even 
when admitting that it is the most probable of any. The historical 
relations of Xerxes's reign coincide with what the book contains; 
and the manners and customs of the ancient Persians are likewise 
accordant. The folly, sensuality, and cruelty of Xerxes, as known 
from profane writers, confirm the credibility of his divorcing the 
queen because she would not appear in obedience to his drunken 
command, on an improper occasion; his decree that all the wives 
throughout the empire should obey their husbands ; his permission 
to the grand vizier to extirpate a considerable portion of his sub- 
jects; his speedy condemnation of that favourite; his elevation of 
Mordecai, one of the very people who had been devoted to destruc- 
tion, to the highest dignity in the kingdom, and his loading him 
with honours, are in harmony with the Persian practices and the 
character of the monarch. Vashti was divorced in the third year of 
his reign, and Esther was raised to the same place in the seventh ; 
the celebrated expedition against Greece intervening. It cannot justly 
be inferred from the author's silence respecting this expedition, that 
he knew nothing of it, as De Wette asserts; for it did not concern 
his purpose in writing. It is true that we read of measures being 
taken, soon after Vashti's divorce in the third year of the monarch's 
reign, for choosing a new queen ; while the selection of Esther did 
not take place till the seventh year (i. 3. &c, ii. 16.); and also that 
virgins were gathered together the second time ; but the espousal 
must have been deferred till after the invasion of Greece, and the 



702 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

virgins already assembled dismissed till they were recalled to the 
king's harem after his return from Greece. We are also reminded 
by De Wette of the difficulty arising from the fact that history 
speaks of other amours and of another spouse of Xerxes after the 
seventh year of his reign, viz. Amestris ; but the Persian kings were 
not satisfied with one royal spouse. Besides Amestris, Esther may 
have become a special favourite, and have been raised to the dignity 
of queen. Another difficulty has been supposed to lie in the fact 
that Xerxes reigned no more than eleven or twelve years, as Heng- 
stenberg and Kriiger reckon ; for at the time when Haman and 
Mordecai should have been his grand viziers, Artabanus had supreme 
influence over him. But it is not proved that he reigned no more 
than twelve years ; and even if it were, the history of the book goes ' 
no farther than the twelfth year of his reign, not being carried on till 
his death. 

De Wette supposes that the main weakness of the narrative con- 
sists in the fact that Esther concealed her pedigree not merely till 
ii. 20., but till the catastrophe itself; that Haman suspects nothing 
of it and of her relationship to Mordecai ; that the king likewise knew 
nothing of it, and is therefore surprised at her request to be delivered 
from destruction (vii. 5.). But surely Esther had no cause for reveal- 
ing her descent earlier ; since it is likely that the king never asked 
about the pedigree of his female favourites ; and Haman, as vizier, 
had nothing to do with the royal harem. 

More formidable in our view, though Justi, Baumgarten, and Keil 
make light of it, is the circumstance that, according to ii. 5, 6. Mor- 
decai seems to have been carried away captive with Jehoiachin king 
of Judah, and thus he must have been about 120 years old at the 
time of the history, while Esther must also have been an aged beauty. 
The only way of escaping from this dilemma is to take the com- 
mencement of the sixth verse, H^n *)$$, who had been carried away, 
&c. to refer to Kish, the last name in the preceding verse, not to 
Mordecai. But this seems unnatural and improbable. The writer 
would appear to have intended otherwise. 

The only other difficulty in the narrative worth mentioning is that 
the Jews, in consequence of the edict procured by Mordecai to frus- 
trate that of Haman, should not only have stood on the defensive, 
but have become aggressive, falling upon the Persians and killing 
upwards of 75,000. We can see however nothing incredible in this, 
especially as the king permitted the Jews not merely i( to stand for 
their life, but to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish all the power 
of the people and provinces that would assault them.'''' (viii. 11.) It was 
natural that the Jews when assaulted should be exasperated, and 
revenge themselves as much as they could. The writer does not 
praise their murderous act. He simply narrates it. When men's 
evil passions are thoroughly roused, they burn with the desire to kill 
and not spare. A spirit of revenge breathes through the book. The 
massacre in question is not without parallels, even in the history of 
European nations. Why then need it be thought incredible in 
Persia? On the whole, we cannot detect many improbabilities in 



On the Book of Esther. 703 

the history. Only one or two present difficulty to the inquirer. For 
the rest, it is consistent with itself, and in harmony with all that we 
know of Persia and her kings at the time. It is a truthful history of 
real events. 

The canonical authority of the book has sometimes been doubted, 
because it is not cited by Philo or in the New Testament, and omitted 
in some ancient Christian catalogues of the sacred writings. As to 
the silence of Philo and the New Testament, it applies to various 
other books, such as Nehemiah, Lamentations, &c, so that nothing 
unfavourable can be deduced from it. It is supposed that Melito in- 
cluded it as well as Nehemiah, under the name of Ezra. We need 
not refer to other ancient writers, some of whom appear to have 
entertained doubts of it because of the apocryphal additions appended 
at an early period. There can be no question about its forming a 
part of the Jewish canon before the time of Christ, since it was 
translated by the LXX. The external evidence is ample on behalf 
of its canonicity. 

It is well known that Luther had a mean opinion of the book 
because of its internal character. He says, " Though the Hebrews 
have this last (the book of Esther) in their canon, it is in my judg- 
ment more worthy than all of being excluded from the canon." ' The 
palliations and defences set up by Sebastian Schmidt and Carpzov, in 
relation to this language, are lame, when they affirm that it does not 
refer to the book as it appears in the Hebrew canon, but as it is read 
by the Romanists with the apocryphal additions. These had been 
already excluded from the canon by Jerome. Other alleged contemp- 
tuous expressions of Luther in allusion to the book as " The book 
of Esther I toss into the Elbe," are incorrectly quoted; the true trans- 
lation being, " The third book of Esther I toss into the Elbe," as 
Hare has shown. 2 Another passage, where the Reformer is supposed 
to allude to the book of Esther, is, " When the Doctor was correcting 
the translation of the second book of the Maccabees, he said, I dislike 
this book and that of Esther so much, that I wish they did not exist ; 
for they Judaize too much, and have much heathenish extravagance. 
Then Master Forster said, The Jews esteem the book of Esther more 
than any of the prophets." " The combination of the book with that 
of the Maccabees," says Hare 3 , " as well as Forster's remark, leaves 
no doubt that Luther spoke of the book of Esdras." We doubt much 
the correctness of this opinion respecting the book to which Luther 
referred. Forster's remark appears to us to favour the application of 
the Reformer's words to the canonical book of Esther. This is con- 
firmed by the fact that Luther did not translate the third book of 
Esdras, or as it is termed in the LXX. and English versions, theirs? 
book of Esdras. Nor did he translate the fourth (English Bible 
second) book of Esdras, which does not exist in Greek. Doubtless the 
great Reformer judged of Esther by its religious tone and spirit, and 
finding a blank there, he applied strong diction in its depreciation. 

1 De Servo Arbitrio, vol. iii. Jena. Lat. p 182. 

- Vindication of Luther against his recent English assailants, p. 219. 

3 Ibid p. 221. 



704 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

CHAP. XII. 

THE BOOK OF JOB. 

The book of Job derives its title from the prominent person pre- 
sented in it to the reader, whose prosperity, severe afflictions, and ex- 
emplary patience under them, succeeded by restoration to more than 
original happiness in this life, are set forth with marvellous power and 
skill. The contents are briefly the following. 

In the land of Uz lived a pious man named Job. He was the richest 
of all the men of the East. On a certain day the sons of God came 
to present themselves before Jehovah. Among them was one called 
Satan, who, being interrogated respecting Job, replied that his piety 
was not of a kind to withstand a reverse of fortune. Jehovah gave 
Satan permission to tempt him, on condition that his person should 
he untouched. Accordingly all his property and children are sud- 
denly destroyed. A similar scene again takes place between God 
and Satan, when the latter receives permission to make the experi- 
ment upon Job's own person, with the restriction to spare his life. 
Forthwith the adversary departed, and smote Job with a loathsome 
disease over his whole person. In the midst of all these calamities, 
domestic and personal, he retained his integrity, not sinning with his 
lips, but patiently submitting to the dispensation of the Almighty. 
Three friends of his, hearing of his misfortunes, came to mourn with 
and comfort him. But in the first instance they sat beside him in 
perfect silence seven days and nights, none uttering a word. Such 
is the historical introduction or prologue to the body of the work, 
consisting of the first two chapters, and written in prose. 

This is followed by three series of controversy or dialogue between 
the sufferer and his friends, the first ushered in by Job's cursing the 
day of his birth, amounting to a complaint against the divine pro- 
cedure as arbitrary and unjust. Suspecting the cause of his friends' 
silence to arise from the view they take of the origin of his con- 
dition, he gives impatient vent to his wounded feelings in rash and 
vehement complaints. This leads at once to the discussion. The 
friends can no longer refrain from expressing their opinion of the 
cause of his misfortunes. Eliphaz speaks first. He reproves the 
sufferer's impatience, calls in question his integrity by insinuating that 
God does not inflict such punishment on the righteous, but sends 
trouble only on the wicked. Finally, he advises him not to strive 
with the Almighty, but to seek a renewal of the divine favour by re- 
penting of the sins which must of necessity have provoked such retri- 
bution, (iv. v.) 

In his reply, Job apologises for the passionate warmth of his com- 
plaints by the greatness of his sufferings, complains of the harsh 
treatment of his friends, and expostulates with God respecting his 
unmerited misfortunes, (vi. vii.) 

The second of the friends, Bildad, resumes the argument of Eliphaz, 
which he enforces with greater acrimony. He tells him that the 



On the Book of Job. 705 

death of his children had been owing to their transgressions ; and that 
if he would be restored to his former prosperous state, he should re- 
form, not murmur. God would not cast away an upright man. (viii.) 

In reply, Job admits that every man must prove deficient Avhen 
judged by the standard of God's perfect purity, and that it would be 
vain to contend with Him because of His resistless power. If he were 
ever so innocent, he would not maintain his innocence, but supplicate 
his Judge for favour. He then returns to complaint, and in despair 
wishes for death, (ix. x.) 

Zophar follows, administering reproof with greater severity than 
his companions. He says that a babbler ought to be answered, and 
a mocker put to shame. As for Job's claim to purity, if God would 
only speak, it would be seen how baseless it was, and how less retri- 
bution had been exacted than had been deserved. The Almighty in 
his infinite wisdom could discover transgressions unknown even to 
the doer of them : and the speaker exhorts Job to repentance as the 
only means by which to recover his former prosperity, (xi.) 

The reply of Job contains a censure of their pretensions to superior 
wisdom. He reaffirms that in the arrangements of providence there 
is no discrimination with relation to character in man. He acknow- 
ledges the general doctrine of God's unlimited sovereignty, declaring 
that he knew it as well as they ; denies that they were right in hold- 
ing his sufferings to be a retribution for sins ; charges them with 
hypocrisy and uncharitableness ; appeals to God and maintains his in- 
nocency ; prays that some respite may be granted him before the close 
of his appointed pilgrimage ; and wishes for the time to come when he 
could be hidden at once in the grave, (xiii. xiv.) Thus the first series 
of controversy contains three speeches of the three friends, with Job's 
reply to each. 

The second series of controversy begins with another speech from 
Eliphaz more vehement than the first, but in the same strain still. 
He condemns the confidence with which Job had asserted his in- 
nocence, proves from past experience that providence never allows 
the wicked to escape punishment, and therefore that Job's afflictions 
must be looked upon as symptomatic of wickedness, (xv.) In reply, 
Job says he has heard enough from pretended friends, who had 
merely aggravated his distress. He then resumes the strain of com- 
plaint, professes his unconsciousness of any wickedness that could 
have brought him to such a state, desires that his friends should argue 
no longer or remain longer with him, and looks to death as his last 
resource, (xvi. xvii.) 

Bildad's second discourse is similar to the first, inculcating the 
general idea that Job's sufferings are the tokens of God's displeasure 
at his wickedness. It contains no exhortation like the former, not 
calling upon Job to confess and forsake his sins that he may obtain 
forgiveness, (xviii.) 

In reply, the sufferer complains bitterly of the cruelty of his friends, 
and the hard treatment of God also ; he craves pity, wishes that his 
words, so culpable in their eyes, were written down, for then they 
would be fairly considered ; and professes his belief that God would 

VOL. II. Z Z 



706 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

yet appear to vindicate the justice of his cause against his accusers, 
(xix.) 

The second speech of Zophar enlarges upon the sure downfal and 
portion of the wicked, (xx.) 

The reply of Job dwells upon the fact that the wicked are often 
favoured in this life. They often spend their days in prosperity and 
terminate them in peace. In direct antagonism to Zophar, he re- 
presents the wicked as especially prosperous in the world, (xxi.) 

The third debate or series of controversy is opened as before by 
Eliphaz, who asserts more directly than before that Job's misfortunes 
were the result of his crimes; charges him with specific sins; and 
affirms that it is vain to suppose they have escaped God's notice. 
He concludes with renewed exhortation to repentance and prayer, 
(xxii.) 

In reply, Job complains of the hardship of having no opportunity 
for self-vindication. If he could find God, he is confident that he 
should be able to establish his righteousness, and be acquitted. But 
this he cannot do, for the Almighty appears to be inflexible in his 
purposes of anger towards him. The wicked, on the contrary, for the 
same cause, escape punishment in this life and are prosperous, 
(xxiii. xxiv.) 

The rejoinder of Bildad expresses very briefly the majesty and 
holiness of God, before whom man cannot be pure, (xxv.) 

Job commences his last discourse with an allusion to the very small 
help furnished by Bildad towards an illustration of the topic discussed ; 
after which he acknowledges God's power and greatness, and pro- 
ceeds to admit that there is truth in what the friends have advanced 
concerning the danger of a wicked life ; though he himself is not 
guilty. The blessings which the hypocrite and sinner enjoy are 
frequently turned into curses. He then draws a contrast between his 
former and present state, adverting to himself in the relative situa- 
tions of life as a husband, a master, a magistrate ; strongly protests 
his integrity ; and concludes with an ardent wish for an immediate 
trial before the Almighty's tribunal, (xxvi. — xxxi.) 

The controversy now terminates. The disputants appear to be 
silenced by the concluding discourse of Job. Another speaker is in- 
troduced. Elihu states that, being only a young man, he had hitherto 
refrained from expressing his opinions, but that now he was resolved 
to declare them ; that none of the speakers had confuted Job, but, on 
the contrary, that Job had silenced them. He finds fault with the 
sufferer for asserting his innocence as he had done, and thereby ac- 
cusing God of injustice. He declares the common method of the divine 
providence in which men are often afflicted for gracious purposes, and 
maintains that Job was blameworthy for adopting the impious lan- 
guage of evil-doers. The divine chastisements should in every 
instance be received with submission. He concludes with a fine de- 
scription of various attributes of Deity, (xxxiii. — xxxvii.) 

After the speech of Elihu, Jehovah himself interposes and speaks. 
In a long discourse, expressed for the most part in the interrogative 
form, he shows Job the folly of questioning the justice or wisdom of 



On the Book of Job. 707 

the divine government, when he was unable to control, or as much as 
comprehend, the commonest phenomena of nature. The speech of 
Jehovah out of the whirlwind is of the sublimest kind, (xxxviii. — 
xli.) 

This appeal to Job is followed by an expression of meek submission 
and repentance on his part (xlii. 1 — 6.); after which Jehovah ex- 
presses displeasure with Eliphaz and the other two friends for speak- 
ing wrongly of Him. Job's prayer for his friends is accepted; he him- 
self is restored to prosperity ; his flocks and herds are doubled ; he 
receives as many sons and daughters as formerly, and dies after a 
long life. (xlii. 7 — 17.) The epilogue, which like the prologue is in 
prose, consists of xlii. 7 — 17., representing Job's vindication, and the 
happy issue of all his trials. The rest of the book, viz. iii. — xlii. 7., 
is in the language of poetry, giving the dialogue or controversy in 
which the whole argument lies. 

In relation to the substance and form of the poem, some have 
ventured to assert that the whole is a fictitious narrative intended to 
convey instruction in the way of parable. Accordingly they hold 
that Job was not a real person. This was an old Jewish senti- 
ment; for it is in Baba Bathra (xv. 1.). It has also been advanced 
by Salmasius, Le Clerc, J. D. Michaelis, Dathe, Augusti, Semler, 
Bishop Stock, Bernstein, and others. We need not enter upon any 
formal refutation of a thing now almost wholly abandoned. It 
is opposed to the spirit and genius of antiquity, which did not create 
historical persons and the historical circumstances belonging to them. 
Pure fiction was a gradual and slow process developed in the 
course of centuries; and belongs to modern literature, not to an- 
cient. The old literature did not comprehend it, as Ewald 1 has well 
remarked. 

An opposite extreme is presented in the opinion of such as maintain 
that all related in the book is a true and real history. It has been 
inferred that this was the view of Josephus, because he includes the 
work among the historical or prophetic parts of the Old Testament. 
Most of the Rabbins, the fathers of the Christian church, and the 
older theologians down to Fred. Spannheim and Albert Schultens also 
adopted it. In favour of it, the Scriptures which mention the -person 
Job have been cited. Thus the prophet Ezekiel speaks of him, 
" Though these three men, Noah, Daniel, and Job, were in it, they 
should deliver but their own souls by their righteousness, saith the 
Lord God." (xiv. 14.) As Noah and Daniel, with whom Job is 
associated, were real characters, it is inferred that Job was the same. 
In like manner James writes in his epistle, " Ye have heard of the 
patience of Job, and have seen the end of the Lord, that the Lord is 
very pitiful and of tender mercy." (v. 11.) Here it is improbable 
that an imaginary character should be quoted as an example of 
patience. 

Again, to the LXX. a subscription or appendix is annexed, con- 
taining a brief genealogical account of Job, which is supposed to have 

1 Das Buch Ijob, second edition, pp. 15, 16. 
Z z 2 



708 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

been taken from an old Syrian version. In it he is identified with 
Jobab, who was the fifth in descent from Abraham through Esau, 
and reigned in Edom. The same is at the end of the old Latin and 
Arabic versions of the book of Job ; but the authority of the latter 
resolves itself into that of the Greek translation. 

Again, the reality of the history is argued from the concurrent 
testimony of Eastern tradition. Job is mentioned by the author of 
the book of Tobit, who lived, it is said, during the Assyrian captivity. 
He is repeatedly mentioned by Mohammed as a real character. His 
history is known among the Syrians and Chaldeans; and many of 
the noblest families among the Arabians are distinguished by his 
name. Even so late as the end of the fourth century, persons went 
into Arabia to see his dunghill ; a fact which attests at least the 
reality of his existence, as do also the traditionary accounts concern- 
ing the place of his abode. 

Most of these arguments are futile, particularly the second which 
is merely conjectural, derived from the slight resemblance between 
the names Jobab and Job, and is too recent to be received as evidence 
in a question of this nature ; for there is little doubt that the genea- 
logy in question is posterior to the time of the Saviour. The third 
is wholly drawn from the book of Job itself, having no independent 
existence as far as we can discover. Traditions respecting Job were 
circulated in the East because they proceeded from the work that 
bears his name. Or, if they were entirely independent, they prove 
no more than the real existence of the person, not the literality and 
truth of the history contained in the book. 

The only pertinent arguments therefore, are those derived from 
Ezekiel and James. And even they are not indubitable, since fic- 
titious and real characters may be mentioned together; as Lazarus 
is represented in the bosom of Abraham. But for the reason already 
assigned, we regard Job as a real personage of antiquity. Still 
this is far from implying that every thing related in the book is his- 
torically true. We may reasonably believe, from the language of 
Ezekiel and James, as well as from the genius of ancient literature, 
that Job was no creation of the imagination, without supposing that 
the book which bears his name contains a literal history. We accept 
the considerations now adduced as favourable to the supposition of 
Job's real existence, but not as valid on behalf of the view for which 
they are sometimes quoted, viz. that the book presents a literal his- 
tory throughout. 

A third opinion, which commends itself on every account to our 
approbation, is that there was an ancient tradition founded on facts 
respecting Job, a man who was remarkably upright and had gone 
through unexampled vicissitudes of fortune, which the writer of the 
present book adapted to his purpose, enlarging, moulding, and em- 
bellishing it as his theme seemed to require. The few circumstances 
which were current respecting the character of the patriarch he dis- 
posed in a manner suitable to the object he had in view. What they 
were, it is impossible to ascertain. We presume that they were not 
many. Even then tradition may have blended fact and fiction ; which it 






On the Book of Job. 709 

was unnecessary to separate. Ewald * has endeavoured to show 
some things which were historical in the time of the poet, and so to 
exhibit portions of the groundwork on which the latter built. Among 
these he places the name Job, those of his three friends, the land of 
Uz, the rare disease elephantiasis with which he was afflicted. It 
appears to us very probable that all these circumstances were histori- 
cal, not poetical embellishments by the author; and Hengstenberg's 
attempt to show that they may have been invented, is nothing but 
gratuitous opposition to Ewald. 2 The endeavour indeed to specify 
any particulars as belonging to the region of history, leaving others 
in that of fiction, is adventurous enough ; but the critic of Gottingen 
does not pretend to adduce all that may be vindicated for tradition. 
Although Job is a patriarchal figure, whose real existence cannot 
well be denied, it does not follow that the theatre of his trials, or his 
home, was received by the poet from tradition as an historical fact. 
The land of Uz may be imaginary. Yet we are disposed to regard it 
as the real habitation of the patriarch. Where then should it be 
looked for ? It is mentioned besides, in Jer. xxv. 20., Lam. iv. 21. ; 
but these passages do not determine its precise situation. It lay on 
the borders of Idumea and Arabia, with Idumea on the south, Judea 
on the west, and Arabia on the east. Some would reckon it as 
belonging to northern Arabia, which is not incorrect, because the 
limits of Syria to the south, and of Arabia, were never strictly 
defined. The LXX. rendering is Aualris; and Ewald 3 thinks that 
the appellations Esau and Uz were originally the same. By this 
apportionment of the land, the incursions of the Chaldeans and 
Sabeans through which Job is said to have lost his possessions are 
geographically appropriate ; but if with Jahn 4 we identify it with 
the valley of Damascus, which could not have been so extensive as to 
warrant the expression " all the kings of the land of Uz " (Jer. xxv. 
20.), the pertinency is impaired. Fries 5 has recently endeavoured 
to investigate the locality of Uz more minutely, and has identified it 
with the territory el Tellul, which is bounded on the west by the 
Hauran mountainous tract, on the south and east by the great 
wilderness el Hammad, and stretches northwards as far as the thirty - 
third parallel. The point has not been materially advanced by his 
dissertation. 

Few who have reflected on the subject will hesitate at the present 
day to adopt the view now stated, viz. that the writer took a tradition 
prevailing in his time respecting Job and embellished it in a manner 
suited to promote his leading design. The basis of the poem is his- 
toric truth. But it is impossible to carry out the theory that all is 
true history. The entire plan and structure bear the impress of 
fictitious narrative. The book is pervaded by a uniform design, and 
is artificial in arrangement. The speeches are elaborately poetical ; 
the language highly wrought. How could Job, afflicted with a 

1 Das Buch Ijob, u. s. w. p. 19. et seqq. 2 Acticle Job, in Kitto's Cyclopaedia. 

3 Ijob, p. 20. 4 Einleituug, vol. ii. p. 768. 

5 Studien und Kritiken for 1854, p. 299. et seqq. 
z z 3 



710 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

loathsome disease and most wretched in mind as well as body, utter 
long discourses presenting all the evidence of careful finish ? How 
could the friends also have spoken in the highest style of poetry, 
with such uniformity of design and fulness ? Did the Deity him- 
self speak literally and audibly out of the midst of a whirlwind? 
There is also an artificial regularity of numbers throughout, especially 
three and seven. Job had seven sons and three daughters. His 
substance was seven thousand sheep and three thousand camels. 
When the time of restoration comes, his possessions are doubled ; 
while the number of children is the same as before. After his trou- 
bles he lives twice the age of man, viz. 140 years. His friends are 
three. There are three series of controversy between him and his 
friends, each consisting of three dialogues, except the last. The pro- 
logue bears the stamp of fiction on its surface ; for it is contrary to 
all verisimilitude that a literal dialogue of the kind reported should 
have taken place between God and Satan : or that the latter should 
have presented himself on two successive occasions among the sons 
of God, in the immediate presence of the Almighty, and thence de- 
scended to earth again. The suddenness and rapidity with which one 
misfortune after another befals the sufferer, beginning with the least 
calamitous and ending with the heaviest, are also unlike the recital of 
real occurrences. These and other phenomena in the book compel 
the critic to believe that the greater part of it consists of fictitious 
circumstances bearing upon the moral end which the author had in 
view. The sentiments put into the mouths of the speakers cannot be 
other than the effusions of the poet's heaven-inspired genius. The 
philosophic doubter's mental struggle is transferred to the hero of the 
story. The searchings of his own mind are embodied in a descriptive 
dialogue admirably devised. The attempted reply of Barnes to these 
considerations is pointless and puerile, proceeding on a false basis. 
This commentator has discovered that the several speeches succeeded 
one another at intervals, which gave full time for reflection. There 
was ample time to arrange each reply before it was uttered. The 
debate was protracted, and systematic, and regular 1 Here every 
thing is supposed to be literally and historically true. 1 

Concerning the structure of the book there has been diversity of 
opinion among critics. Some have pronounced it an epic poem, as Stuss, 
Lichtenstein, Ilgen, and Good. The last writer believes that it has 
all the prominent features of an epic as described by Aristotle him- 
self ; such as unity, completion, grandeur in its action ; loftiness in its 
sentiments and language ; multitude and variety in the passions 
which it develops. The characters too are discriminated and well 
supported. 2 But we perceive no propriety in calling it an epic poem. 
The prologue is opposed to this notion ; and the narrative begins at 
the historical commencement instead of following the rule laid down 
by Horace, 

" Semper ad eventum festinat, et in medias res 
Non secus ac notas, auditorem rapit." 

1 Commentary on Job, Introduction, § 1. 

2 See Good's Introductory Dissertation to Job, sect. 2. 



On the Book of Joh. 711 

The dramatic form of the poem has been often observed. Indeed 
it can hardly escape the notice of the most careless reader. In this 
view some, as Mercer and Beza, style it a tragedy, with divisions 
into acts and scenes, attributing a regularity to it which it was not 
intended to present. Tried by the Greek drama it can hardly lay 
claim to that appellation, as has been shown at length by Lowth. 1 
It contains no plot or action; exhibits one uniform succession of 
things without change of feature from beginning to end ; while the 
manners, passions, and sentiments are such as might be expected in 
the situation. There is no doubt, however, of the form being dra- 
matic. The dialogues are in metre ; the poetry is of the sublimest 
description ; the parties are introduced speaking with great fidelity 
of character ; strict history is not observed, fiction giving effect to the 
whole ; the parts are regularly distributed, and an air of completeness 
marks the entire work. It may therefore be called the divine drama 
of the ancient Hebrews, unique, peculiar, original ; distinguished 
above all the other books not merely by the elevation of its subject, 
but the art with which the matter is arranged — the completeness with 
which the poet has seized a great idea and invested it with a living 
body of flesh and blood, fresh and finished. It is the greatest, most 
sublime composition which Hebrew genius inspired of God has pro- 
duced. In it poetry has shown her highest art. Yet the gifted 
spirit who composed it remains in miraculous concealment, his very 
name being unknown, as well as his place of abode. Probably his 
contemporaries were not alive to the sublime and unique excel- 
lence of his work, towering as it did above all the effusions of the 
Hebrew muse, and overleaping centuries of the slow growth of ideas 
among the Hebrews. His very prose is poetical. It has been 
observed by many, that the dialogues of the speakers may be distri- 
buted into strophes ; and accordingly they are so arranged by Koester. 2 
In like manner, Ewald has endeavoured to penetrate into and elimi- 
nate a strophic structure. But we incline to think that he has 
searched for and found more artificiality of this kind than was 
intended by the original writer. There can be no doubt that the 
poet employed the elaboration of art in the disposition of his theme ; 
that it is laid out with masterly skill ; that genius is observable not 
only in the working out of the great topic, but in the shape it has 
received from his plastic hand ; and that poetic art is combined with 
lofty conception ; but we doubt the existence of such strophic divi- 
sions as Ewald has discovered. They belong largely to his own 
subjectivity. 

Some critics, as Keil, prefer to call its form lyric ; but this is true 
only so far as the lyric is included in the dramatic. In like manner 
it embraces something of the epic, which has led to the hypothesis of 
its being an epic poem. Others, objecting to the idea of calling it a 
poena of any kind, refer it to the department of moral or religious 

1 Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, xxxiii. xxxiv. 
9 Das Bncli Hiob, u. s. w., 1831. 
zz 4 



712 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

philosophy. They prefer to characterise it as a philosophical, reli- 
gious discussion, in a poetical form. 1 

The theme of the book has been differently apprehended. From 
the various views taken of the integrity and unity belonging to the 
whole this was to be expected. It is first necessary to settle 
whether it should be accepted as coming from one author in its 
present state; or whether various parts were subsequently added. 
We believe that the doubts thrown upon the genuineness of the 
prologue and epilogue, of xxvii. 7— xxviii. 28., and of xl. 15 — xli. 
26., are groundless. What has been advanced against the discourse 
of Elihu, xxxii. — xxxvii., is more plausible. But after careful and 
anxious consideration of the objections, we must maintain the ge- 
nuineness of this portion also, though it has peculiarities which cause 
the critic to hesitate. 

Regarding the book as a whole, composed at first just as it now is, 
what is the problem discussed by the writer ? It is this, how the 
sufferings of the righteous are related to the government of a righ- 
teous God. How can they be consistent with the divine justice? 
Connected with the problem, and indeed a part of it, though only 
incidentally discussed, is the relation of the prosperity of the wicked 
to the same righteous government. 

We can conceive the difficulty which a Jewish mind would have 
in resolving a problem of this nature. The Mosaic religion presented 
temporal rewards and punishments for virtue and vice. According 
to it, the good are rewarded and the wicked punished, in this life. 
It did not unfold immortal life beyond death, in which the seeming 
inequalities of the divine dispensations should be adjusted. The 
most pious Hebrew had but a faint conception of a future state. His 
vague notions of Hades were unconnected with rewards and punish- 
ments. The author of this poem endeavours to penetrate the mys- 
tery which hung over the problem. Suspecting that the prevailing 
opinion respecting God's display of His justice by means of prosperity 
and adversity, was not well-founded, and perceiving that the righteous 
often suffered, while on the contrary the wicked succeeded in their 
designs ; he felt the force of experience in relation to the question. 
He knew that there was a better way of judging about the distri- 
bution of the good and evil which befals men than the old-established 
one. Unable to believe that the righteous always suffer because 
they have committed grievous misdeeds, and that the wicked are 
always punished judicially, he endeavoured to arrive at a deeper and 
more comprehensive view of the ways of Providence towards men. 
On the one hand, the justice of God must be maintained. Whatever 
takes place under his government and control must be right. On 
the other, the lives of the pious who suffer, cannot be overlooked. 
How is the Deity just in allowing them to fall into grievous mis- 
fortune ? The three friends of Job represent the current faith of the 
nation, viz., that the good and bad which befal men in this life are 
according to their virtuous conduct. If, therefore, the righteous are 
visited with adversity, they must have committed such sins as bring 
1 See Noyes on the book of Job, Introduction, p. xi. 2d edition. 



On the Book of Job. 713 

upon them God's retributive justice. A faith of this kind, though 
the current one, must not, however, be identified with the true theo- 
cratic or Mosaic doctrine. Umbreit correctly says, that " the doctrine 
of a retribution bounded by this life, does not necessarily flow from 
the spirit of the Hebrew theocracy when rightly understood." l The 
law was silent respecting future rewards and punishments. It did 
not deny that there would be such. This silence of the law led to 
the conception of misfortune in this life being simply judicial or 
retributive, its amount indicating the amount of sin committed. 

Job himself presents a better view than this, viz., that the jus- 
tice of God cannot be vindicated on the exclusive ground of adver- 
sity and prosperity. External calamities are not the proper test of 
sins committed. The solution of the problem, however, is not given 
by Job. What he says seems to set forth the first struggles of 
a mind like the writer's, emerging out of the old perverted Mosaism 
into the light of a full consciousness that there is often a marked 
opposition between the condition and merits of men ; that their lot 
is so unequal as to impugn the universality of the maxim ; afflic- 
tion is the invariable consequence and punishment of crime. The 
doubts are put into the mouth of Job, who expresses them in strong 
and often irreverent language. His spirit, wrung with unutterable 
sorrow, gives vent to its feelings in words too unqualified. He over- 
states the case ; for he appears to say that the wicked are generally 
more prosperous than the righteous. In the bitterness of his soul 
he blames God himself, calling in question the justice of his moral 
government because he cannot see the harmony between it and the 
integrity of innocent sufferers. 

In the speeches of Elihu, the manifestation of God, and the his- 
torical conclusion of the book, the poet's solution is given. The sub- 
stance of what Elihu states is, that when good men are afflicted, 
they are subjected to a salutary discipline which will be withdrawn 
as soon as it has effected its purpose. He adduces the moral influence 
of afflictions. Admitting, as he does, that calamities befal good men, 
he intimates that they are not sent as mere punishments of past 
offences, but as correctives of something which needs reformation. 
In this manner, Elihu brings out the subjective side of the disputed 
question. The Supreme Being himself is then represented as speak- 
ing, and deciding the controvei'sy. He convinces Job of his inability 
to fathom the divine counsels, makes him feel that the sufferings of 
the good take place agreeably to a predetermined purpose, and that 
it is wrong to lose sight of the power and wisdom of Deity. The 
reasonableness of entire confidence in the arrangements of Provi- 
dence, and unqualified submission to them, is strikingly set forth. 
Job's humiliation and repentance are followed by his restoration 
to more than former prosperity. Thus the righteousness of God is 
manifested in connection with grace. The solution of the problem, 
as far as it is solved by the author, lies in the speeches of Elihu, the 
addresses of God, and the renewed condition of the sufferer. God's 

1 See Umbreit's new version of the book of Job, &c., translated by Gray, vol. i. p. 5. 



714 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

justice is compatible with the calamities of the good because those 
calamities are removed when divine wisdom sees they have effected their 
true purpose. Even if this solution could not have been eliminated, 
the manifest folly of questioning the counsels of the Almighty should 
prompt to unqualified submission. What is man that he can compre- 
hend the moral government of God ? 

It cannot be truly said that the solution is as clear or satisfactory 
as the whole case demands. It can be fully given only under 
the Christian dispensation where life and immortality are brought to 
light. But when one reflects on the state of religious knowledge at 
the time, the dimness that overshadowed a future life, the want of 
apprehension of rewards and punishments hereafter, he will wonder 
at the far-seeing genius of the man who could penetrate so deeply into 
the mystery of the question. Under his religious ethics it is so far 
cleared up as to prevent despair, and to silence murmuring at the in- 
equalities of the divine dispensations. The suffering righteous are not 
left without comfort. Afflictions are not always judicial. They are 
corrective and preventive. Even though their design in the case of 
individuals could not be known, they should lead to the entire sub- 
mission of the heart to God, — to a perfect faith in the wisdom as well 
as justice of the Most High. It is a marvellous advance, on the part of 
the gifted writer, into the highest region of religious knowledge, to 
show that piety may be disinterested, as in the case of Job. Indeen 
this is the utmost point at which the virtuous spirit can arrive, eved 
under the New Testament. It is near that elevated region of true 
Christianity which the apostle John so beautifully exhibits, wjien he 
represents the believer as loving God because He is love, not because 
He has a reward to bestow in a future life. That love of God in 
Christ could not be educed under an outward and sensuous dispen- 
sation like the Jewish, which was merely intended to prepare the 
way for a better ; yet the writer of the poem before us goes a great 
way towards it in showing the disinterestedness of Job's piety. 

Let us see more particularly how the theme is developed. Here 
great skill, combined with true poetic spirit, is displayed in the way 
it is treated. The prologue introduces the problem to the attention 
of the reader. An eminently pious man is suddenly overwhelmed 
with misfortunes. Satan has obtained permission from God to inflict 
these upon him. He is represented as the direct cause of them, 
though it is obvious, from the allegorical scene in heaven, that God 
intends a trial of Job's virtue. The sufferer remains true to the 
Lord, notwithstanding the loss of all his earthly possessions, his 
children, a severe disease affecting his own person, and the evil 
suggestion of his wife. Friends come to console him. Their long 
silence, however, as they look at him with feelings of compassion, 
irritates his mind. He breaks the silence in language of vehement 
and impassioned complaint, cursing the day of his birth and wishing he 
had not been created. Here then is an indirect accusation of the divine 
righteousness in the government of the world, provoking the friends 
who had come to comfort him, to reply to his irreverent utterances. 
Then begins a discussion between Job and his three friends, respect- 




On the Book of Job. 7 1 5 

ing the cause of the sufferings endured by the righteous. The 
argument is conducted in the form of a dialogue or controversy. 
It is developed by the instrumentality of human disputation. The 
substance of all that the friends allege is, that misery always implies 
guilt, — that every one who is punished in this life is punished for 
his sins, — and therefore, that Job is suffering the just reward of some 
great crime or crimes which he has committed. They look upon the 
outward state of men as the index and evidence of the favour or dis- 
pleasure of God. Good and evil are distributed in this life accord- 
ing to desert. Hence they exhort Job to repent of the guilt which 
the divine punishments inflicted upon him show he had contracted. 

The reply to this on the part of Job is that he is upright, and that 
he is hardly dealt with by God who afflicts equally the righteous and 
the upright. He is so confident of the justice of his cause as to avow 
his conviction that God will hereafter manifest himself as the vindi- 
cator of his character; and reproaches his friends with advancing 
against him unjust accusations in order to ingratiate themselves with 
the Almighty. 

The narrative is of progressive interest, according as the speakers 
become warmer and more impetuous. At first they are more cautious 
in their assertions, but gradually lecome less guarded, uttering 
broader and more sweeping statements. Thus the three merely 
insinuate at the commencement that Job's great afflictions must have 
been caused by great sins ; but at length they openly charge him 
with secret crimes. They speak with greater asperity, and repeat 
their chai-ges of impiety against Job more strongly. On the other 
hand, Job's defence, at first mild and moderate, becomes more impas- 
sioned. He asserts his innocence with greater confidence, denies the 
frequency of the divine judgments on wicked men, affirming uniform 
prosperity to be their lot, and maintains that should God himself 
erect a tribunal he would be acquitted there. 

It is remarkable with what consummate ability the writer has put 
into the mouths of the three friends the same sentiments, differently 
expressed according to the age and character of each. Eliphaz, who 
always takes the lead as being the oldest, speaks with more dignity 
and importance ; Bildad, the second, has more sharpness and warmth, 
but less fulness and dexterity in arguing ; Zophar, the third, who is 
the youngest, begins very violently, but soon becomes tame and weak. 

There is no doubt that both parties are wrong in the dispute, 
though they utter many sentiments right and true in themselves. 
The general drift of their statements tends to a false conclusion. The 
friends err in supposing that the sufferings of the righteous in this 
life are always the result of crimes on their part — that sins are in- 
variably punished in this life, virtue invariably rewarded, by outward 
adversity and prosperity respectively. In like manner, Job is wrong 
in maintaining his integrity so unqualifiedly as to accuse God of 
injustice in his moral government. Because he has witnessed the 
frequent prosperity of the wicked, and cannot see in his own case 
why the Deity should grievously smite, he rebels against the righteous 
administration of the Almighty. 



716 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

He has the advantage of his opponents in the argument, but has no 
adequate apprehension of the evil of sin. Taking a superficial view 
of sin, he is penetrated with an excessive idea of his own innocence. 
Unable to see that calamity may be sent for a gracious as well as 
judicial end, he necessarily maintains an exaggerated opinion of his 
own purity. 

It is obvious that the friends are worsted in the discussion. Job 
reduces them to silence, Zophar not venturing to .say anything in the 
third and final series of the entire controversy. The way is thus pre- 
pared for a new disputant. Elihu, as a young man, had properly 
waited till Job and his friends had spoken. He shows that both the 
sufferer and his friends were wrong; the latter in asserting that greater 
sufferings imply greater crimes, and that they are always punishments 
for sins committed ; the former in arguing with the Divine Being, 
and calling in question His justice. Accordingly he adduces some 
thoughts on the disciplinary character of calamities. Affliction is 
intended to correct, to show men their inherent sinfulness, and thus 
lead them to the exercise of a child-like faith in the goodness of God, 
who withdraws the affliction when it has led to humility. Happiness, 
even in this life, is restored to such as receive affliction in a spirit 
accordant with that which sent it. The goodness as well as justice of 
the Almighty is seen in it, leading the truly righteous to a higher 
worldly happiness. The whole creation shows the Almighty's power 
and justice ; how then can one assert that he suffers innocently ? 

After the appearance of Jehovah, who speaks out of the whirlwind 
and shows how foolishly Job had spoken in questioning the divine 
justice, the sufferer submits to God and repents of his offence. The 
three friends are censured for their maintenance of an invariable con- 
nection between outward condition and the state of the heart towards 
God and man, as well as for their harsh treatment of a friend in 
distress. 

The character and speech of Elihu have often been misapprehended. 
Thus Herder represents his expressions as the feeble, prolix babbling 
of a child. In harmony with this view, Bertholdt, Umbreit, Vaihinger, 
Halm, Noyes, represent him as a conceited, assuming talker, coming 
forward with an air of great consequence, assuming, bold, supercilious, 
adding little or nothing to the solution of the problem, certainly not 
giving the true explanation of the cause of Job's afflictions, so that 
none thinks it worth while to reply to him. All this appears to us to 
arise from a total misapprehension of what Elihu really says. The 
manner of his coming forward is. in harmony with his youth and in- 
experience. Yet he is not only warm but earnest. And it should be 
remembered, that a striking contrast is intended to be produced between 
his manner and that of the Deity, who is introduced immediately after 
him. The state of the problem is substantially advanced by Elihu. 
Indeed the germ of the solution lies in his sentiments. All that Elihu 
says accords with what is spoken by the Almighty, as well as with 
the historical conclusion of the book. If the problem be not solved 
there, it receives no adequate solution in the entire work. 

The more we study the nature and design of this wonderful pro- 



On the Book of Job. 717 

duction, the more are we Impressed with the fact, that profound and 
scriptural views of sin are needful towards an apprehension of its 
theme. The more superficial the idea of sin, the less likelihood will 
there be of understanding the theme discussed, and especially the drift 
of Elihu's discourses. The inherency of sin in human nature must 
be felt and acknowledged before the righteousness of God can be re- 
conciled with the sufferings of the virtuous and prosperity of the 
wicked. Man's comparative not absolute innocence even at his best 
estate should be seen as a great cardinal fact, making room for the in- 
troduction of an element which will illuminate the sufferings of the 
most righteous and vindicate the ways of God. 

If the fundamental idea of the work has been rightly stated, it 
follows that many accounts which have been given of its purport are 
incorrect. Thus Hirzel 1 and others think that the design of the 
writer was to show the weakness and untenableness of the old Mosaic 
doctrine of compensation by a striking example, to withdraw every 
support from it, and to establish a better doctrine in its room. This 
hypothesis, which has been introduced into England by Froude 2 , and 
is founded on what is called the old, genuine work, implies that the 
speeches of Elihu are of later origin. In any other case its advocates 
would allow its inadequacy. But Ave must reject it as inadmissible for 
the following reasons. 

1. It represents the Mosaic doctrine of recompense as a poor, miser- 
able thing — as mere Jewish superstition. w Unjewish in form," says 
Froude, " and in fiercest hostility with Judaism, it hovers like a 
meteor over the old Hebrew literature, in it but not of it." 3 If the 
tendency of the book be so strictly anti-Mosaic, how came the Jews 
to admit it into the national canon ? 

2. It proceeds on the supposition of perfectly innocent sufferers. 
Accordingly its advocates regard Job as upright and sinless, believing 
his own protestations with regard to himself in every particular. 
Surely this is incorrect. 

We are willing to allow that the prevailing doctrine of retribution is 
shadowed forth in the discourses of the three friends, but not the 
genuine theocratic one. They give it in the light in which it was com- 
monly held among the mass of the Jewish people, as derived from the 
Mosaic laiv. They pervert by unduly extending it, as if sin was 
always punished in this world with a degree of outward intensity pro- 
portioned to the greatness of it. Now Judaism, destitute of all dis- 
tinct reference to a future state of rewards and punishments, did not 
deny or forbid disinterested virtue. It gave ready occasion to misre- 
presentation by fostering a selfish view of religion. It presented 
retribution in this life as a lower motive, adapted to the Jewish mind 
in former ages, without meaning to exclude higher and purer motives. 
The inference was easily drawn from it that outward sufferings in this 
world were invariably the punishment for sins, and in proportion to 
their enormity ; though the inference was not legitimate. 

1 Hiob, erklart, u. s. w., p. 2. first edition. 

2 The Book of Job, reprinted from the Westminster Review. 8 p. 9. 



718 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

An effectual refutation is furnished by the speeches of Elihu, which 
the advocates of this hypothesis omit as spurious, confining their atten- 
tion to the fierce conflict between the old and the new faith as repre- 
sented by the three friends and Job respectively. But the old and the 
new faith— the Mosaic doctrine and the later doctrine of Scripture — 
the Old Testament generally and the New, are not here antagonistic to 
one another, as alleged. When we consider that the one was initiatory 
and objective, the other spiritual and subjective, — that rewards and 
punishments in another life were not made known under the Mosaic 
economy, while they are fully brought out under the New, — we shall 
cease to wonder at the prominence of the connection between temporal 
good and religion in the Old Testament. The Mosaic doctrine, how- 
ever, makes no exception in favour of innocence and freedom from 
sin. Neither does any part of the Bible. In holding forth the doc- 
trine of retribution for sin, it states what runs throughout all revela- 
tion. There is no such thing in the world as absolute innocence or 
sinlessness. Hence we cannot allow that the friends of Job set forth 
the true Mosaic doctrine ; nor that Job himself is a faithful represen- 
tative of a more recent and better one, which was just beginning to 
dawn upon the mind of the gifted writer, and possibly a few of his 
philosophical contemporaries. 

Others, with more plausibility, think that the problem discussed is 
that of full acquiescence in the divine counsels and will, without 
venturing to pronounce any decided opinion respecting the ways of 
Providence or the causes of prosperity and adversity in this life. All 
doubts should be silenced before the thought of an omniscient and 
omipotent governor of the world. Unlimited acquiescence in the 
arrangements of infinite power and wisdom is man's sole duty. 
According to this view the question proposed is not solved. It is 
merely, as has been said, negatively solved. 

Apart from the comfortless doctrine thus presented, which could 
not satisfy the thinking Hebrew spirit, the hypothesis in question 
necessitates the excision of several portions of the book as spurious. 
Were there no more than from the third to the twenty-seventh chap- 
ter, the design of the writer might be that now specified ; but as the 
work stands, it is utterly improbable. The hero of the poem is 
anxious to penetrate the mystery of divine Providence, and is not 
reproved by the Deity for so wishing. And the history of Job him- 
self is opposed to the view. The issue of his sufferings and happy 
restoration are a justification of the righteous government of God. 
Hence the divine plan is not represented as a problem covered with 
impenetrable darkness, into which man's prying eyes should not look. 
In reference to individuals, indeed, its mysterious side is strongy set 
forth ; but not generally. Although therefore this hypothesis has had 
many advocates, Stuhlinann, Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Von Colin, Knobel, 
Vatke, &c, it must be rejected as untenable. 

Less likely than the preceding is the hypothesis of those who assign 
to the theme of the book a national reference. This is done to a 
greater or less extent by several writers, who suppose that the nation, 
suffering, oppressed, and captive, or at least the pious part of it, are 



On the Booh of Job. 719 

depicted by the afflicted Job ; and that they are directed to a better 
faith as we'll as a firmer confidence in the righteous government of God. 
Agreeably to this view, some think that the friends of Job represent 
the prophets with their ordinary admonitions, whom the poet after- 
wards blames for having spoken amiss. Such allegorical interpretation 
is most fully carried out by Warburton, who understands by the three 
friends Sanballat, Tobiah, and Geshem; and by Job's wife the idola- 
trous women with whom the Jews had contracted marriages. 1 He be- 
lieves, of course, that the book was written after the return from the 
captivity. The German advocates of the view, however, do not run 
into such excess. As the book was composed before the Chaldean 
captivity, it cannot symbolise the national troubles then. Nor indeed 
can it have been intended to depict the national calamities at any 
period. How can Job be an appropriate representative of a people who 
suffered for their great sinfulness and apostasy from God ? The hero 
of the poem maintains his integrity ; and therefore he cannot depict 
the guilty people deservedly punished. And it is thoroughly against 
every correct view of the prophetic order to suppose Job's friends their 
symbolisation. The problem proposed in the book mainly relates to 
individuals. It is difficult with reference to individual sufferings. 
How can the divine righteousness be vindicated with relation to per- 
sonal piety ? Good men are grievously afflicted ; while bad men 
prosper and prevail in the world. Here the problem becomes intri- 
cate. But if it be viewed in relation to a whole nation, it loses its 
importance and mysteriousness. Nations are always punished in this 
world for their wrong doings, in a marked and visible way that cannot 
be mistaken. It is otherwise with individuals. If the question had 
borne a national reference, it must have received another answer. 

But while rejecting the hypothesis in question, it is possible, or 
rather as we think probable, that the state of the people generally 
was in the writer's mind when he thought of the problem proposed 
in this remarkable composition. The kingdom to which he belonged 
was in a decaying condition. Every thing was tending downwards. 
Amid deep and melancholy musings on the national affairs, he was 
led to consider the question of the righteous moral government of 
God mainly in its application to individuals. 

Another hypothesis we may merely mention, as it has found no 
supporters beyond its author. Baumgarten-Crusius supposes 2 that 
the idea of true wisdom is developed in the book. The different 
stages of it, first simple piety, then a legal mind, then a conscious 
and wise religion, are represented by Job, the three friends, and 
Elihu respectively. Here the discourses of Deity are omitted in the 
various steps of wisdom. The whole is so arbitrary that a simple 
mention will suffice. 

Others suppose that the book is intended to unfold the doctrine of 
the soul's immortality. This hypothesis, formerly advocated by 
Michaelis 3 , has been revived by Ewald 4 who ingeniously develops 

1 Divine Legation of Moses, book vi. section 2. 

2 Opuscula Theologica, p. 174. et seqq. 

3 Einleitung in das alte Testament, vol. i. p. 23. et seqq. 

4 Das Buch Jjobj p. 10. et seqq. 195. et seqq. 



720 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

it as the leading idea of the work. He thinks it was necessary that 
the fundamental conception of the book should rest upon the ever- 
lasting duration of the human spirit as its certainty, for the purpose 
of conducting to a successful issue the struggle against the ills which 
befal humanity. External evil as such is not necessarily the conse- 
quence and punishment of sin. It stands in no actual relation to the 
internal excellence of man. It merely excites the spirit to a higher 
consciousness, whence it is led to feel its eternal nature, and so to 
overcome outward calamity by rising above it. The book of Job has 
the merit of preparing deeper views of evil and of the immortality of 
the soul, transmitting them as fruitful germs to all futurity. 1 

The propounder of this view admits that it is to be found in a 
very few passages, viz. xiv. 13 — 15., xvi. 18, 19., and epecially xix. 
23 — 29. ; as also that it was wholly new to the poet, who ven- 
tures to introduce and explain it very briefly, as it were out of a first 
necessity. It always remains in the distant background. But 
surely if it be the fundamental idea of the book, and perfectly new 
withal, the writer must have felt the necessity, not only of timidly 
introducing but also of establishing it, that it might obtain cur- 
rency among the intelligent pious of his nation. Its novelty, if 
it be the central idea of the poem, would have secured a prominent 
place for it. We cannot but believe that the contents of the book in 
general are opposed to making the doctrine of immortality the funda- 
mental idea. Besides, as Hengstenberg remarks 2 , the epilogue is 
adverse to the hypothesis. There a solution of the problem pro- 
posed is contained in the shape of outward facts. Job receives the 
double of what he had lost. But in Ewald's view he had lost nothing, 
and should not have been outwardly recompensed. As little ac- 
cordant is the hypothesis with the prologue, or the speeches of Deity. 
The former shows that the calamities of Job are a temptation only, 
which cannot be lasting, and must therefore be a reality ; while 
the latter are far from addressing the sufferer as though he 
should be insensible to calamity, because it has no real relation to his 
immortal nature. It need hardly be said that the speeches of Elihu 
ill accord with the hypothesis ; but Ewald agrees with those who 
regard them as a later appendage. 3 

With relation to the unity and integrity of the book, various por- 
tions have been considered later interpolations or additions, by 
certain critics, such as the prologue (i. ii.) and epilogue (xlii. 7 — 17.). 
But nothing advanced against these sections is sufficient to show 
their spuriousness. They agree well with the rest of the book in 
ideas, language, colouring, and artificiality. The objections made to 
them are not of much importance; such as their prose-form, dis- 
tinguishing them from the body of the poem ; the use of the name 
Jehovah instead of other names of Deity that prevail elsewhere, 
Eloah, El, and Shaddai ; and certain discrepancies existing between 
them and the poem itself. It is not difficult to account for such phe- 

1 Das Buch Ijob, p. 13. 2 Article Job in Kitto's Cyclopaedia. 

8 See Havernick's Einleitung, vol. iii. § 291. 



On the Book of Job. 721 

nomena. The prologue and epilogue are narratives for which prose 
is the appropriate vehicle ; not speeches or dialogues where poetry is 
the fitting medium. The use of the names of Deity seems to have 
been regulated by circumstances. Where the author himself speaks, 
he employs the genuine theocratic name Jehovah, both in the pro- 
logue and epilogue, as in other places. The other names arise from 
the fact of the writer laying the scene and dialogues among those 
who did not belong to Israel, in patriarchal times. It is needless to 
examine the discrepancies supposed to exist between the prose parts 
and the poem, because they are founded on misconception. The work 
would appear naked and mutilated without the exordium and conclu- 
sion ; the speeches would be unintelligible : whereas they form a 
suitable and important part of the entire work, the one introducing 
the problem which the writer meant to discuss; the other summing 
up and setting forth the result of the whole. We sympathise with 
the sufferer when we learn from the prologue what he was ; which 
we could hardly have done otherwise ; for though he vehemently 
asserts his innocence, his own testimony of himself could not prevail 
against the representations of the three friends so far as to awaken a 
deep interest in his behalf. 

In regard to chapters xxvii. xxviii., after Kennicott had attributed 
to Zophar the last eleven verses of xxvii., viz. 13 — 23., because in 
them Job seems to renounce his former opinions and fall in with 
those of his opponents 1 , Bertholdt followed him 2 ; while Stuhlmann 3 
assigned xxvii. 11 — 23. to Zophar, and the 28th chapter to Bildad; 
Bernstein 4 pronounced all from xxvii. 7 — xxviii. 28. spurious; and 
Knobel 5 regarded as such only the 28th chapter. Eichhorn inge- 
niously imagined the eleven verses which Kennicott assigned to 
Zophar to be a summary by Job of his adversaries' opinions. None 
of these conjectures can be approved. The chapters should not be 
disturbed in any way ; nor is there any good reason for supposing 
them interpolated either wholly or in part. The inconsistency be- 
tween what Job utters in xxi. and what he says in xxvii. has been 
greatly exaggerated. The true explanation is, not that he retracts 
what he had uttered in the precipitancy of passion ; but that he limits 
what he had already affirmed of the prosperity of the wicked ; and 
makes such due concessions as were necessary to obviate misconcep- 
tion on the part of his opponents. He had before dwelt on the 
flourishing state of evil-doers, setting forth the one side of the picture 
strongly and absolutely in opposition to the three disputants; now 
he candidly owns that punishment sometimes overtakes the guilty, 
and so far allows that his friends were right. But this concession is 
not inconsistent with his main position, viz. that the innocent often 
suffer. That position had been stated in such a way as to give room 
for misconception, especially on the part of disputants like those be- 
fore him ; it had been pronounced absolutely ; and now that they are 

1 Dissertatio generalis, ed. Brans, p. 539. 

2 Einleitung, vol. v. pp. 2163, 2164. 

3 Exeg. Ki'it. Bemerkk. p. 76. et seqq. 

4 Ueber das Buch Hiob, in Keil and Tschirner's Analekta. 

5 De Carm, Jobi argum. fin. et dispositione, &c, p. 27. et seqq. 
VOL. II. 3 A 



722 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

silenced, Job can calmly limit it lest it might be thought that he 
denied all punishment to the guilty. In the 28 th chapter, however, 
he shows that the mystery respecting the distribution of happiness 
and misfortune among men was still unsolved ; for the hidden wisdom 
of God is there described. 

Again, the section xl. 15 — xli. 26., containing descriptions of the 
river-horse and crocodile, has been suspected, or declared to be spu- 
rious by critics like Eichhorn, E. Meier, Ewald; on insufficient 
grounds, as we think. Ewald, who is the ablest exponent of these 
grounds, refers to the fact of its being inconsistent with the design 
of Jehovah's second speech, where the mere human relation, not that 
of the dead and animal creation, to the problem of the Divine righteous- 
ness, is adduced; to the want of connection between xl. 6 — 14. and 
the section before us; to the prolixity of the latter compared with 
the flowing, soft ease of the former ; and to the different peculiari- 
ties of language. 1 All this is too arbitrary and subjective to be of 
much force, arising in a great measure from an endeavour to find 
such logical ability and symmetry in every part as the most acute 
modern can require. It is erroneously presupposed, that the two 
divine attributes of omnipotence and righteousness are treated 
separately, the one in Jehovah's first speech (xxxviii. xxxix.), 
the other in his second (xl.) ; whereas this is not the case. The 
style of description merely shows the art of the poet in giving a dif- 
ferent and suitable form to each one of his pictures ; and the differ- 
ence of language is slight, as has been shown by Hirzel and Hahn. 

The genuineness of Elihu's discourses has been most exposed to 
objection. There is more reason for questioning it than that of any 
other portion. Yet after a careful consideration of all that has been 
put forward by the critics who range themselves on that side, we are 
compelled to retain the speeches as an original part of the work. It 
would be vain to deny that there are suspicious circumstances about 
them ; and we are willing to allow those circumstances all the value 
they can claim. The principal reasons for discarding all that Elihu 
utters (xxxii. — xxxvii.) are the following. 

(1.) Elihu is not mentioned in the prologue or epilogue, neither 
is any judgment pronounced upon his speeches as on those of the 
three friends. Here it is taken for granted that all the persons who 
appear in the drama should be introduced into the prologue ; and 
that Elihu's discourses belong to the same category as those of the 
three friends. But Jehovah, who appears afterwards, is not men- 
tioned in the prologue. Nor should Elihu, who was not one of the 
friends of Job, be placed in the same situation with them. He oc- 
cupies another platform, and was not intended to be introduced by 
the poet until the three friends were silenced, for the purpose of 
showing Job the error he had committed, and bringing forward a 
solution of the problem. No blame could be attached to Elihu, be- 
cause he spake the truth ; and to have mentioned him with commend- 
ation would have been inconsistent with the antique simplicity of 
the book. Hence he is not mentioned in the epilogue. 

1 Das Buch Ijob, p. 312. 



On the Book of Job. 723 

(2.) The discourses of Elihu remove the connection between those 
of Job and Jehovah, obscure the contrast in which they stand to one 
another, anticipate, and so render superfluous, what the latter con- 
tain, because they are occupied with a solution of the problem; 
whereas the discourses of the Deity inculcate unconditional submis- 
sion to His almighty power and hidden wisdom. We are unable to 
perceive any material interruption of the connection between the 
last speech of Job, and that of the Deity. Does the commencement 
of Jehovah's speech in the 38 th chapter necessarily imply that Job 
had just spoken before ; or is the conclusion of Job's speech in 
xxxi. 38 — 40. broken off and imperfect, as the book now is? Neither 
of these facts is obvious. Even if there be some interruption of the 
connection, it is of little consequence, since critics sometimes see or 
fancy they see what would be an improvement of the work which 
they are studying. When it is affirmed that Elihu's speeches weaken 
those of the Deity by forestalling what they contain, the affirmation 
would be valid only on the assumption of their presenting the same 
ideas, or giving a complete solution of the problem. But this is not 
the case. Elihu prepares the way for the divine appearance. What 
he says is a natural introduction to the speech of the Deity. It is 
meant to show the sufferer that afflictions are not simply punish- 
ments, but gracious and salutary discipline, teaching man a due sub- 
mission to God, who then appears to Job in majesty and power that 
he may be fully humbled by a contemplation of condescending grace. 
It was impossible that Elihu could have avoided anticipating some- 
thing of the argument of the Deity. All the speakers do so more 
or less. How could they otherwise discourse of His works and 
ways ? To us, it seems that the appearance and language of Elihu 
are a fitting preparation and contrast to those of Jehovah who fol- 
lows up what His creature had said by inspiration, inculcating un- 
qualified subjection to the divine counsels which had been so irre- 
verently impugned. 1 

(3.) Elihu misunderstands or perverts the language of Job (xxxiv. 
9., xxxv. 3.). These passages are not perverted. Rather is their 
genuine tendency and import shown. The words of Job imply what 
Elihu says. Certainly he does not ascribe to the sufferer worse sen- 
timents than he has expressed, as is apparent fron* the 21st chapter. 

(4.) Job is mentioned by name in the speech of Elihu, but not by 
the three friends. Little weight can be attached to this trifling cir- 
cumstance. There must be some difference of manner in different 
speakers. It is unreasonable to look for absolute uniformity. 

(5.) The strongest argument is founded on the style and language. 
The diction is peculiar, different from that of the other parts. It has 
a stronger Aramaean colouring. Elihu uniformly employs certain 
expressions, forms, and modes of speech for which others are as 
uniformly found in the remainder of the book. This argument has 
been copiously answered by Stickel. 2 The following particulars put 
together appear to us a sufficient reply to it. There is some difference 
of style and language in the discourses of the other speakers. Certain 

1 See Havernick's Eiuleit. iil. p. 369. et seqq. 2 Hiob, u. s. w. p. 248. et seqq. 

3 A 2 



724 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

favourite expressions divide them off one from another. Hence it is 
natural to suppose that the language of Elihu should be proportion- 
ably distinctive. And it can be shown that so many peculiar expres- 
sions and modes of connection, so many phrases and word-significa- 
tions of the book occur in these discourses, as to make identity of 
authorship probable. It is true that the language put into the mouth 
of Elihu has its own characteristic peculiarities. But they have been 
greatly exaggerated by the opponents of the authenticity of this por- 
tion. It is scarcely fair to reckon up every single term which stands 
in what Elihu says, for another term in the remainder of the work, 
without taking into account the peculiar conception embodied, and its 
connection with the general sentiment of the place. Subtracting 
words whose use is resolvable into the circumstances under which 
they are presented, few peculiarities will remain to occasion dif- 
ficulty. The difference is intentional, originating in the art of the 
author. Every speaker has his own manner and style ; Elihu must 
have his. And as the appearance of the latter is strikingly marked, 
what he utters must be so. He was a young man, occupying a 
different relation to Job from that of the other speakers. He had a 
distinct stand-point of his own, prominent and unique. The Ara- 
maeisms in Elihu's speeches are certainly more numerous than else- 
where. If, as Stickel supposes, Elihu was of Aramaean descent 
(xxxii. 2.), these will mark him out as such. They are then intro- 
duced designedly and appropriately. But this supposition is unne- 
cessary. The poet employs peculiarities of expression to mark the 
peculiarities of his character, showing youthful fire by the highly 
poetic method of utterance. 

(6.) It has also been said that the speech of Elihu is weak, prolix, 
studied, obscure ; the only true foundation for which assertion is, that 
it is more diffuse and less argumentative than the discourses of the 
three friends. In questions of subjective taste, some critics are liable 
to go too far, as De Wette seems to have done on this point. 

On the whole, we feel that the peculiarities of style and diction in 
Elihu can be accounted for in a good degree by considerations like 
those now advanced. That all have been satisfactorily explained, we 
will not take upon us to affirm. Something peculiar still remains, 
after all that has been adduced by way of explanation. The rough 
and heavy diction still excites suspicion, in conjunction with an ap- 
proach to prolixity and other peculiarities. We cannot deny that 
the critic who is well acquainted with Hebrew style is liable to be 
unfavourably impressed with regard to the original connection of this 
part of the poem with the rest. Yet the difficulties on the other side 
are greater. Those who maintain the spuriousness cannot readily 
explain how and why some writer, a century or more after the ori- 
ginal one, undertook to add to a work of such towering sublimity. It 
must have been felt by every intelligent Hebrew acquainted with the 
book, that it proceeded from a master-spirit soaring far above any poet 
of his nation in comprehensiveness of thought and power of imagina- 
tion. Where was the man possessing a similar inspiration to add to 
it? The nearer any second writer approached the other, the more 



On the Book of Job. 725 

averse would he be to tamper with a production so lofty in its reach. 
It would have been a hazardous task ; and had it been attempted, it 
is not likely that the insertion would have been readily received. 

It would be amusing, were it not most discreditably uncandid, to 
notice the way in which the speech of Elihu is mentioned by one who 
has tried to introduce into this country the exploded view of Hirzel. 
" The speech of Elihu is now decisively pronounced by Hebrew 
scholars not to be genuine." l Certainly, De "Wette, Knobel, Hirzel, 
Ewald, Magnus, and others, are excellent Hebrew scholars. But there 
is no mean Hebrew scholarship on the other side. Jahn, Rosen- 
miiller, Umbreit, Stickel, Havernick, Hahn, Schlottmann, Hengsten- 
berg, are at least entitled to mention. They ought not to be wholly 
ignored, as if the question were settled. It is not one that can be 
decided in a day, on the side of the spuriousness of the portion, 
because of the language. 

Those who think that the poem contains a real narrative have 
been anxious to investigate the age of Job. Though the point is of 
no moment in the eyes of him who takes a right view of the book, 
it is otherwise regarded by many. The chief circumstances adduced 
for the purpose of determining the age of him who is described in 
the work, are the air of antiquity pervading the manners recorded ; 
the length of Job's life, which seems to place him in the patriarchal 
times ; the allusions made to that species of idolatry which was the 
most ancient, and which is a decisive mark of the patriarchal age ; the 
nature of the sacrifice offered by Job in conformity to the divine 
command, viz. seven oxen and seven rams, suitable to the respect 
entertained for the number seven in the earliest ages ; the language 
of Job and his friends, who, being all Idumeans or Arabians, con- 
verse in Hebrew ; the allusion to the most ancient kind of writing, 
by sculpture ; the reckoning of riches by cattle ; the word Kesitah, 
translated a piece of money, signifying a lamb (xlii. 11.) Such are 
the particulars mentioned by Magee 2 and Hales 3 in favour of the 
patriarchal period. It is obvious that several of them are worth 
little, such as the age of Job, 140 years, the language of Job and his 
friends, &c. &c, because they confound the fictitious with the real. 
The attempts which have been made to specify the precise time at 
which Job lived are ridiculous at the present day. Kennicott 4 , for 
example, gives a table of descent in which Job is made to be contem- 
porary with Amram the father of Moses : Hales, by astronomical 
calculations, fixes the time of Job's trial to 184 years before the birth 
of Abraham ; while others describe him as living in the days of Isaac ; 
of Jacob ; of Joseph ; between the death of Joseph and the exodus. 
Heath, like Hales, fixes the very year in which he died, viz. fourteen 
before the exodus. All such conjectures proceed on the possibility of 
arriving at a genealogy of Job and his three friends ; whereas the thing 
is impossible. It is therefore idle waste of time to indulge in assump- 

1 Froude on the Book of Job, p. 24. 

2 Discourses on the Atonement, &c., vol. ii. part 1. p. 58. et seqq., ed. 1816. 

3 Analysis of Sacred Chronology, vol. ii. p. 53. et seqq. 2d edition. 
* Remarks on Select Passages of Scripture, p. 152. 

3 A 3 



726 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

tions so gratuitous and baseless. All that can be said with truth is, 
that the principal character of the poem is placed in patriarchal times. 
Tradition seems to have fixed him there, — and correctly so, in all pro- 
bability. Job and his friends, supposing those friends to have been 
real personages, lived in a period of primitive simplicity, when each 
man acted as high priest in his own family, before the institution of 
an established priesthood. It is not necessary to suppose that the 
writer of the book transported the leading personage in it to a time 
anterior to that in which he had been placed by the current account 
on which he built the composition. Dismissing all useless inquiries 
like those relating to the precise time at which Job lived, and his 
genealogy, let us rather advert to the age and author of the book. 
Here opinions have been very diverse, ranging over the entire space 
from before Moses till after the Babylonish captivity. 

1. Some assign the work to the pre-Mosaic time, conjecturing 
at the same time that Job himself, Elihu, or a contemporary, wrote 
it. Although respectable names may be cited in favour of this view, 
such as Lowth, Schultens, Peters, Magee, Hales, &c, it is justly 
abandoned by every good critic at the present day. Proceeding on 
the mistaken idea of identifying the patriarchal antiquity diffused 
throughout the work with the age of the writer himself, it needs no 
refutation. The time when the book appeared and the time when 
Job, supposing him to be a historical person, actually lived, should 
not be confounded. All that has been adduced in favour of the great 



me 



& ' 



antiquity of the poem, as though it were the oldest extant, is trifl 
and for Job himself as the author, all that can be said is, " there 
appears no good reason to suppose that it was not written by Job him- 
self." l It is nugatory to assert that he lived after his calamities an hun- 
dred and forty years, which afforded ample leisure ; the art of making 
books was known in his time and by the patriarch himself; the re- 
cord of his own imperfections and failures is such as we should ex- 
pect from him ; and he has shown in his own speeches that he was 
abundantly able to compose the book. Such is the flimsy argu- 
ment which Barnes adduces for Job's being the compiler or editor of 
this remarkable book, with the exception of the record of his own 
age and death. Yet as if this were not enough, the same writer con- 
jectures that Moses adopted it and published it among the Hebrews 
as a part of divine revelation, and entrusted it to them to be trans- 
mitted to future times ! 2 

2. There is also little foundation for placing the work in the 
Mosaic period, and assigning it to Moses himself or some contem- 
porary. It is true that the Talmud refers it to him as the author, 
that Saadias shared the opinion, and that it prevailed among the 
Greek, Latin, and Syrian fathers. Even in recent times it has found 
advocates in Michaelis, Jahn, Hufnagel, Palfrey, &c. Perhaps the 
point which has had most weight in favour of Moses as the writer is 
the coincidence of many expressions in the work with those found in 

1 See Magee, p. 81. 

9 See Introduction to Commentary on Job, § iv. 5. 6. 



On the Bool of Job. 727 

the Pentateuch, and Genesis in particular. Jahn has collected ex- 
pressions occurring in Job which seldom appear elsewhere, except in 
the Pentateuch ; showing also that forms of speech found in the 
later books, not in the Pentateuch, rarely exist in the book of Job ; 
and that the latter has some terms peculiar to itself, which went into 
disuse before the later Old Testament books were written. 1 All this 
is of little avail against overwhelming considerations on the other 
side. The antique character is indeed well preserved throughout, as 
was required by the patriarchal existence of the chief person de- 
scribed in the poem. But everything is remote from the Mosaic 
law. The narrative has no point of contact with a national worship. 
A written law is ignored. Jewish history and ritual have no exist- 
ence, as far as the work indicates. Nothing is theocratic. Feeling 
the force of these considerations, those advocating the Mosaic author- 
ship generally assume that the great lawgiver wrote it during his 
sojourn in Midian, between the time of his flight from Egypt and 
return thither. But the period in question has all probability against 
it. The problem discussed is not one that would have taken such 
deep hold of the mind before the time of the Mosaic law. On the 
contrary, it implies familiarity with that law. The views presented 
of sin, of guilt, of punishment, are of a kind to involve the idea of 
continued subjection to that rule of life. Besides, there are certain 
ideas belonging to a later religious development than the Mosaic 
period; as is manifest from their first appearance in the book of 
Psalms. Compare what is said of Slieol or Hades in iii. 17 — 19., 
vii. 9. &c, xiv. 10. &c, xvi. 22., xvii. 13. &c. It cannot be denied 
also, that the author has various allusions to the Pentateuch, as xv. 7., 
xxvi. 7. &c, xxxviii. 4. &c. compared with Gen. i. 2.; iv. 19. and 
x. 9. with Gen. iii. 19. ; xii. 7—10. with Gen. i. 19—25. and ix. 2. ; 
xxvii. 3. with Gen. ii. 7. ; xxii. 6. with Exod. xxii. 26., Deut. xxiv. 6. 
10 — 14. Reminiscences of the prescriptions in the Pentateuch respect- 
ing strangers, the poor, the suffering, widows and orphans, appear to 
have been in the mind of the writer in passages like vi. 27., xxiv. 
2 — 4. 9. The prohibition of the worship of the stars contained in 
Deut. iv. 19., xvii. 3., gave origin to xxxi. 26, 27. Even verbal re- 
miniscences have been traced in various places, as in v. 14. com- 
pared with Deut. xxviii. 29.; xxxi. 11. with Levit. xviii. 17. The 
reason why the poet does not refer more definitely to the Jewish 
writings and history, but expresses himself in general terms, lies in 
the plan of the book, and the leading desire to maintain the character 
of an antique simplicity throughout. Besides, he did not intend to 
discuss the problem on the ground of divine revelation, but to a 
considerable extent independently of it. The sacred books of the 
Jews he knew to be destitute of the true solution; they rather 
embarrassed it ; and therefore he could not do otherwise than argue it 
on the ground of religious consciousness and experience. The mode 
too in which the subject is treated points to a later period. Lyric 
poetry was not then in its infancy. The gnomic poetry too had 

1 Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 786. et seqq. 



728 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

been cultivated. The form of the whole is highly finished. It is 
elaborate and artificial. The parallelism of members, and general 
structure approaching to the strophic, betoken a flourishing age of 
poetry when it had left far behind incipient and. cruder attempts. 
In short, both in conception and execution, it belongs to an age of 
reflective refinement which cannot be looked for prior to David. 
The post-Mosaic and later period of the production before us we 
consider fully proved by the character of the language, which is 
already degenerate, the refined art of composition, the exuberance of 
poetical diction, and especially the problem discussed. Till we hap- 
pened to see Barnes's introduction to the book, we had supposed that 
the notion of an unusual number of Arabisms in the book had been 
exploded. Yet it reappears there, and plays an important part. 
Every judge of Hebrew style sees at once that there' is no more 
Arabism in the diction of Job than in some other poetical books ; and 
that any apparently antique cast in it proceeds from the skill of the 
poet throwing himself back to the patriarchal period of his hero, not 
from the fact of the writer himself having lived so early. The lan- 
guage was already decaying in the time of the poet, for it verges to- 
wards Aramaeism ; as any Hebrew critic easily perceives. 

3. Another view places the time of composition during or after the 
exile, and has been adopted by Le Clerc, Warburton, Grotius, Bern- 
stein, Gesenius, Knobel, Umbreit, Hartmann, Vatke, and others. In 
favour of the Chaldean period has been adduced the linguistic cha- 
racter of the book. The language has an Aramaean form, betraying 
the late Hebrew literature to which the book belongs. But similar 
Aramaaisms are found in the earliest poetry. They belong to the 
poetic dialect and the poetic costume. Comparing the book in this 
respect with any of those late writings which are confessedly cha- 
racterised by Chaldaisms, it is somewhat different. The language is 
tolerably pure, and but partially tainted with decay. We cannot in- 
deed say, with some, that it is as pure as could be reasonably ex- 
pected in any poem of the same length at any age of the Hebrew 
language ; for it has undoubtedly marks of Aramaean degeneracy. 
Yet it has not very much evidence of this nature. Hence little 
weight can be attached to the consideration in question. Another 
particular urged on behalf of the same date is the alleged national 
tendency and reference of the poem. The sufferings and teleology of 
the Jewish people harmonised with and suggested the theme. We 
believe that this view has arisen from a mistaken apprehension of the 
leading scope of the work. The nation cannot have been alle- 
gorically represented by the suffering Job, for how can that be re- 
conciled with his stoutly maintained innocence and integrity ? The 
religious element of Hebraism, as well as the true import of the 
theocracy, forbid the supposition. All national reference in the book 
is wanting. The disheartening view of human life need not have 
originated in the depressed Chaldean period ; for the world always 
presents numerous examples of righteous men suffering. And that 
the meaning is symbolic, cannot be rendered in the least degree 
probable. 



On the Book of Job. 729 

Still further, the ideas contained in the book respecting the angels 
and Satan are supposed to be of late and foreign origin. How the 
doctrine of good angels exhibited in Job is different from that of 
the Pentateuch, particularly Genesis, it is difficult to discover. 
Ewald, who thinks that the representation here given is intermediate 
between the old Mosaic doctrine and the later one, has failed to put 
forward his position in a clear and convincing light. He supposes 
that as yet the separation between the countless number of existing 
spirits into good and bad had not been made ; and that Satan does 
not yet appear, as he does subsequently, at the head of an innumer- 
able host of malignant spirits. 1 Angels are represented as serving 
and fulfilling the will of God in relation to man's salvation ; and 
surely this idea of them is in all parts of the Old Testament. As to 
the alleged Persian origin of the doctrine of Satan, it has not yet 
been proved. On the contrary, various writers, and Hengstenberg 
in particular, have shown the untenableness of the position that the 
great evil spirit, the prince of darkness of the Oriental mythology, 
was transferred to the Jews in the Babylonian captivity. And it is 
not less futile to represent the Satan of this book is altogether dif- 
ferent from the great evil spirit so called afterwards. When 
Herder, Ilgen, and Eichhorn represent him as a sociable spirit, one 
of the sons of God with whom the Lord holds gracious discourse, 
they altogether mistake the meaning of the description given of hiin. 
Does he not wish to tempt the patriarch ? Does he not desire to 
inflict evil on man? Is not the suggestion put into his mouth 
against Job a wicked one ? Hence Ewald himself is reluctantly 
obliged to confess that the Satan of Job is the later evil spirit, 
though he proceeds to magnify and sharpen the difference between 
them to an unjustifiable extent, as though the old Mosaic ideas about 
this spirit were in a transition state, merging into other and very 
different notions. 

The strongest objection to the date of the Chaldean exile lies in 
Ezek. xiv. 16. &c. &c, from which the existence of the book in that 
prophet's day is obvious. In like manner Jeremiah, whose prophecies 
are largely characterised by imitation, seems to have read it. Compare 
Jer. xx. 14 — 18. with Job. iii. 3 — 10. ; Jer. xx. 7, 8. with Job xii. 4., 
xix. 7. ; Jer. xvii. 1. with xix. 24. ; Jer. xlix. 19. with Job ix. 19. ; 
Lam. ii. 16. with Job xvi. 9, 10., xxvii. 23.; Lam. iii. 7 — 9. with 
Job xix. 7, 8. ; Lam. iii. 14. with Job xxx. 9. ; Lam. iii. 15. with 
Job ix. 18. 

Where then is the date of the book to be fixed? Is there any 
probability of settling it more precisely between the time of Moses 
and the Chaldean period? Keil 2 , Schlottmann 3 , and others refer the 
poem to the flourishing period of Hebrew poetry, or the age of 
Solomon. With this view they enumerate various allusions to 
it found in Isaiah and Amos, such as Isaiah xix. 5. compared 
with Job xiv. 11. ; Isa. xix. 13, 14. with Job xii. 24, 25. ; Isa. lix. 

1 Das Buch Ijob, pp. 62, 63. s Einleitung, p. 413. 

3 Hiob verdeutscht und erlautert, p. 108. et seqq. 



730 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

4. with Job xv. 35. ; Amos iv. 13. with Job ix. 8. ; Amos v. 8. with 
Job ix. 9., and xxxviii. 31. ; Amos ix. 6. with Job xii. 15. These 
references, however, are indistinct, and do not show the use of 
the book by the prophets in question. Rather are there a few 
marks of the use of Amos and Isaiah by Job. Thus ix. 8. strongly 
reminds the reader of Amos iv. 13. ; xviii. 16. of Amos ii. 9.; xii. 
15. of Amos ix. 6. In like manner, xiv. 11. seems to be formed 
from Isa. xix. 5., perhaps also xii. 24. &c. after Isa. xix. 13. &c. 
Zech. i. 10, 11., iii. 1, 2,, and vi. 5. are based upon the first and 
second chapters of Job. The same critics have also directed at- 
tention to the correspondence in ideas and language between Job, 
the Psalms, and Proverbs. Even some of the older Davidic Psalms 
(and not merely those composed in the Chaldean period) are said 
to present marks of agreement, showing that they were written about 
the same time with our book. It is difficult, however, to say 
whether the writer of certain Psalms copied from Job, or the author 
of Job from them. Apart from the uncertainty attaching to the 
authorship of many Psalms formerly attributed to David, and still 
vindicated for him by such critics as Hengstenberg ; we are unable 
to see the correctness or cogency of the examples given by Keil of 
reminiscences out of Job in certain later Psalms, such as cii. civ. cvii. 
cxlvii., as well as of the use of Psalm xxxix. 14. in Job ix. 27., x. 
20.; Psal. lviii. 9. in Job iii. 16.; Psal. lviii. 10. in Job xxii. 19.; 
Psal. ciii. 15, 16. in Job vii. 10. and xiv. 2. The only clear in- 
stance in which the writer of Job drew from a Psalm is that in Psalm 
xxxix. 13. All the words and phrases of this verse occur in various 
parts of the book before us, as Job vii. 19., xiv. 6., x. 20, 21., vii. 
8. 21. It may be also that the sentiment in the fifth verse of the 
same Psalm was taken and amplified in Job vi. 8 — 12., vii. 7., xiv. 
13., xvi. 21, 22. On the whole, it is clear to us that the writer of 
Job lived after David ; and that there is some coincidence of sen- 
timent as well as of expression between various early Psalms and the 
poem under consideration ; but such coincidence, with the exception 
of the 39th Psalm, is not of a kind to show that the one copied the 
other. It may be sufficiently accounted for by the general uni- 
formity of the religious ideas expressed in the Old Testament, and 
by similarity of subject. 

The coincidences between Job and the Proverbs are more striking. 
The description of Wisdom, the representations of Hades, and nu- 
merous words and phrases, have been adduced to show that both were 
written about the same time. 1 The most obvious correspondences are 
in Job xv. 7. and Pro v. viii. 25. ; Job xxi. 17. and Pro v. xiii. 9., xx. 
20., xxiv. 20. ; Job xxviii. 18. and Prov. iii. 15. ; Job xxviii. 28. and 
Prov. i. 7. Here we must hesitate in believing that the contempo- 
raneousness of the writings should be inferred from the agreement in 
question. Still less can it be said with Heiligstedt 2 that the writer 
of the Proverbs, or at least of the first nine chapters, copied the 
book of Job. The contrary is as probable, to say the least ; for the 
post- Solomonic origin of those chapters is not settled. We will not 

1 See Keil, p. 414. 2 Commentarius in Jobum, procemium, p. xxiii. 



On the Book of Job. 731 

however affirm that the author of the poem before us imitated parts 
of the book of Proverbs. And it is asserting too much when con- 
temporaneousness of origin is assigned to both productions because of 
the accordance of sentiments and sometimes of words which they 
present. Similarity of subject ; practical philosophy and the results 
of experience being set forth in both ; together with that uniformity 
of religious conceptions which pervades the Old Testament, will 
explain the phenomenon in question. 

We attach no importance to another feature in the book which 
Keil adduces as contributing to place it in the reign of Solomon, viz. 
the richness of new views and images drawn from nature and first 
suggested to the Israelites by the commercial traffic of the time. To 
this head belong the notices of remarkable animals, the river-horse, 
crocodile, ostrich ; costly things, as gold of Ophir, pearls or corals, 
&c. &C. 1 

If it could be clearly shown that Isaiah alludes to the book of Job, 
as Hengstenberg 2 and others believe, we should get a limit beyond 
which the age of the latter should not descend. But we are unable 
to perceive that Isaiah plainly refers to it. It is impossible to carry 
it up beyond the time of David ; for with him began a new era of 
sacred literature, after which alone it could be produced. 

In view of all the phenomena, the beginning of the seventh century 
is the most likely date. A time of national degeneracy is the most 
likely to have given birth to it. "When the Jewish state was de- 
clining, when morals were extensively corrupt and the laws of justice 
violated, when the power of the nation was broken and calamities 
assailed the good and bad alike, the theme of the book must have 
pressed itself most heavily on the meditative mind of the poet. Hence 
it should be dated after the Assyrian captivity and before the final 
deportation of the Jews to Babylon. Who the gifted writer was, is a 
question that cannot be answered. His person is unknown. Perhaps 
he dwelt alone and apart in the midst of his nation, a solitary spirit 
possessing extraordinary insight and inspiration for his clay. Some 
suppose that he was a foreigner, not an Israelite. But this idea is 
utterly untenable. The reception of the work into the canon, and its 
characteristic features, are opposed to the assumption. As to the 
country in which it was written, none other has as good a claim as 
Palestine itself. Several of the older theologians thought that' the 
book was a translation from an Aramaean or Arabic original. A 
remark occurs in the Appendix of the Septuagint to the effect that 
it was rendered from the Syriac. Some Rabbins were also of the 
same opinion. All such views are now justly exploded. Others have 
thought that the writer was an Idumean, as Herder and Ilgen ima- 
gined ; or a Nahorite, as Niemeyer believed. Eichhorn, with greater 
probability, held that he was an Israelite born in Arabia. The book 
itself gives no countenance to these hypotheses. The author was 
undoubtedly an Israelite, for the genius of Hebrew culture shines 
forth with an unmistakable light from amid the system of philosophy 

1 Einleitung, p. 415. 2 Article Job in Kitto's Cyclopaedia. 



732 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

which the author designedly erected on the soil of Arabia. Though 
he avoids the name of Jehovah, the covenant God of his fathers, in 
the body of the poem, conformably to the locality where the scene is 
laid ; he constantly introduces it in the prologue and epilogue. And 
though Job and his friends use the appellations EvS, pX, »;»# ; the 
genuine Hebrew name of Deity, Jehovah, occasionally appears, as in 
xii. 9., xxxviii. 1., xl. 1. 3. 6., xlii. I. 1 More recently, Hitzig and 
Hirzel thought of Egypt as the country in which it was composed ; 
while Ewald went so far only as to assign the origin of xl. 1 5 — xli. 
26. to that region. This rests on the fact of the author's intimate 
acquaintance with Egypt, as seen in his book. The description of 
the working of mines in xxviii. 1 — 11.; his knowledge of the Egyp- 
tian Mausolea, iii. 14. &c. ; of the myth respecting the phoenix, xxix. 
18. ; of the vessels of bulrushes, ix. 26. ; the Nile-flags, viii. 12. ; the 
Nile-horse and the crocodile, xl. 15 — xli. 26., have been brought for- 
ward as examples. But it has been shown by Stickel 2 that these do 
not constitute a valid argument. An intelligent Hebrew might well 
know such things without having seen them ; and if he were pos- 
sessed of graphic power, he could present them forcibly and vividly 
to the mind of his readers. It is not necessary that he should have 
actually witnessed what he describes in such vivid colours. He had 
both inspiration and genius, which supersede copying from outward 
phenomena. It is possible, as Stickel and Schlottmann endeavour to 
show, that he lived in southern Judea, not far from the frontier, 
where he would have opportunities of seeing caravans, mines, &c, 
but it is by no means necessary to account for the knowledge he 
exhibits. And as to the agreement between him and Amos of Tekoa 
in dialectic peculiarities 3 , little weight can be assigned to it ; the co- 
incidence being slight and easily resolvable into other causes. On 
the whole, all attempts to locate the author either permanently or at 
the time he wrote the book in Egypt, or near the frontier in the 
south-east part of Palestine, appear futile. He was a native Hebrew 
living in his own nation ; and need never have gone out of it or near 
the south-eastern boundary, as a qualification for writing the work. 
For aught that appears to the contrary, he may have had his home 
in the centre of the theocracy, Jerusalem itself; though it is more 
probable that he lived out of the metropolis. 

" Who," says Herder, " shall answer our inquiries respecting him 
to whose meditations we are indebted for this ancient book, this justi- 
fication of the ways of God to man, and sublime exaltation of humanity, 
— who has exhibited them too, in this silent picture, in the fortunes 
of an humble sufferer clothed in sackcloth and sitting in ashes, but 
fired with the sublime inspirations of his own wisdom ? Who shall 
point us to the grave of him whose soul kindled with these sublime 
conceptions, to whom was vouchsafed such access to the counsels of 
God, to angels and the souls of men, who embraced in a single glance 
the heavens and the earth, and who could send forth his living spirit, 

1 See Umbreit, vol. i. pp. 43, 44. Hiob, p. 263. et seqq. 

3 See Stickel, p. 276. 



On the Book of Job. 733 

liis poetic fire, and his human affections, to all that exists, from the 
land of the shadow of death to the starry firmament, and beyond the 
stars ? No cypress flourishing in unfading green marks the place of 
his rest. With his unuttered name he has consigned to oblivion all 
that was earthly, and, leaving his book for a memorial below, is 
engaged in a yet nobler song in that world where the voice of 
sorrow and mourning is unheard, and where the morning-stars sing 
together." l 

The preceding account of the principal topics connected with the 
book of Job would be thought imperfect without some notice of the 
remarkable passage in xix. 25 — 29., a passage which has been much 
contested among critics. As every attempt at a true explanation of 
it must be based on a faithful version, and as the English translation 
is very incorrect in this instance, we shall preface our remarks with a 
faithful version of the original words. 

But I know, my Vindicator lives, 

And will stand at last upon the earth ; 

And though after my skin this [body] be destroyed, 

Even without flesh shall I see God ;l 

Yea I shall see him for myself, 

Mine eyes shall behold him, none other [shall do so] ; 

My reins pine away [with longing], within me. 

Opinions have been divided between referring the words in ques- 
tion to deliverance from temporal distresses, without any allusion to 
a future state, and the view which regards them as containing a noble 
confession of faith in the Redeemer. Perhaps the two views have 
been too sharply contrasted with one another. Were we required, 
however, to choose between them, we should undoubtedly prefer 
the former, for the following reasons. 

First: to regard Job as here expressing his firm faith in the 
Redeemer is opposed to the general drift of the book. The belief in 
a future state of retribution would have been a new and important 
element, giving a more satisfactory solution of the problem than that 
which appears in the work. As it is found nowhere else, it is not 
likely that it occurs here in a solitary passage. Had it been enun- 
ciated by the writer of the poem, he would doubtless have made it 
more prominent ; since it contained a better solution than any indi- 
cated by the speakers. The answer given to this argument by Dr. 
P. Smith 2 , is utterly insufficient. " It should be recollected that, in 
a poetical book, the matter is disposed considerably according to the 
taste and choice of the writer ; and that a more vivid impression 
might be made, by presenting a capital circumstance with its bright- 
ness and force collected into one point, than would be produced if it 
were dispersed through the general composition." We must consider 
the present passage in connection with the main problem discussed in 
the book. The interpretation which refers it to the Messiah and a 
future life anticipates the solution of the problem afterwards given; 
shooting besides so far ahead of it as to vitiate the natural develop- 
ment of the philosophy at which the mind of the writer had arrived. 

1 Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, translated by Marsh, vol. i. pp. 120, 121. 

2 Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, vol. i. p. 185., 4th edition. 



734 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Secondly : the interpretation in question is inconsistent with various 
declarations of Job himself in other places, as vii. 7, 8, 9., x. 20 — 22., 
xiv. 7 — 15., xvii. 11 — 16. It is strange that xiv. 7 — 15. should be 
thought by any to afford a proof of the resurrection of the body, 
since it teaches the very opposite. In explaining the words " Man 
givethup the ghost, and where is he?" and those that follow, "As the 
waters fail from the sea, and the flood decayeth and drieth up ; so 
man lieth down and riseth not; till the heavens be no more they 
shall not awake nor be raised out of their sleep" (verses 10 — 12.), the 
comment is offered by Henderson, " Confessedly nowhere in this 
world ; his place knoweth him no more. But he still exists, he still 
is somewhere in the world of spirits. The patriarch then proceeds in 
the most positive terms to deny that man has any resurrection to 
expect in the present world ; but here again he breaks off, and 
teaches that, though he should not awake or be raised out of the sleep 
of death during the continuance of the material heavens, yet he shall 
when they shall be no more." l The meaning here attached to the 
words, "till the heavens be no more they shall not awake," &c, is in- 
correct. The true sense is they shall never awake. The phrase " till the 
heavens be no more" is employed to express the longest duration; 
and is equivalent to TT\\ 175 1)}, till the moon be no more (Psal. lxxii. 
7.), both being synonymous with D71JJ 1%, to eternity. The key to the 
true sense is to be found in those passages where everlasting dura- 
tion is attributed to the heavens, as Psal. lxxxix. 36, 37., cxlviii. 6. ; 
Jer. xxxi. 36. It is true that in Psal. cii. 27., Isa. li. 6., the idea of 
the dissolution of the heavenly bodies is indicated ; but that fact 
merely shows that some persons under the Old Testament were 
farther enlightened than others. To say on the ground of these 
passages that Job expresses his belief that men would only continue 
in the grave till the heavens should pass away, and then awake to a 
new life, is to put opposition between the things compared, for then 
the fate of a tree would not be better than that of a man, whereas it is 
so depicted in the context. Besides, the whole doctrine of the book 
forbids the interpretation proposed. Hence it is clear that the re- 
surrection of the body is not hinted at in the paragraph, xiv. 7 — 15. 
It has also been affirmed that the other passages just cited imply no 
more on the part of Job than the belief that when he should die, he 
would not again appear on the earth, which does not exclude the con- 
comitant belief of the doctrine of a resurrection to life in a future 
world. 2 But this is little better than quibbling. The point is, would 
one give utterance to such language, if he believed in the resur- 
rection of the body ? The idea of his doing so is utterly impro- 
bable. But indeed the words in xvii. 13 — 16. mean more than that the 
speaker would not again appear on the earth. They imply that Sheol 
to him was a dark place, full of gloom, where cherished hopes of life 
and happiness perish : " If I wait, the grave is mine house : I have 
made my bed in the darkness. I have said to corruption, Thou art 
my father : to the worm, Thou art my mother, and my sister. And 

1 Preface to Barnes on Job. 2 Henderson, Ibid. 



On the Book of Job. 735 

where is now my hope? As for my hope, who shall see it? They shall 
go down to the bars of the pit, when our rest together is in the dust." 
He wishes for death as the termination of his miseries, not as in- 
troductory to a new life of happiness. Whatever notions of Sheol he 
may have had, they were indistinct and shadowy, ill according with 
an express confession of faith in the Saviour. 

Thirdly : even Elihu, who gives the most rational and Scriptural 
account of the design of afflictions, never alludes to a future life of 
retribution as a topic of consolation. God himself does not refer to 
it. And yet it should properly have been referred to in Elihu's 
discourse, where the solution of the problem discussed by the writer 
is given. 

Fourthly : the Jewish commentators, in searching for proofs of the 
doctrine of a future life in the Old Testament, do not adduce this as 
appropriate. 1 

What then is the meaning of the place? In it Job expresses 
his confident expectation that God will one day vindicate his inte- 
grity from the unjust accusations of his friends, and stand up as 
a judge to decide the cause in his favour. Though he should be 
reduced to a skeleton, he believes that he shall yet see God interpose 
on his behalf. Had the speaker then no idea whatever of a future 
life ? We cannot go so far as to assert he had not. Some faint fore- 
boding of another state seems to have been in his mind at this 
particular time. It was, however, dim and vague. There was nothing 
clear or substantial about it, for it appears nowhere else. It is likely 
that he was not aware of the extent of meaning to which a calm 
thinker might carry out his words; or rather, the poet who puts 
such language into Job's mouth had occasionally a dim foreboding of 
a life to come. Yet it was not defined. Rather was it a mere groping 
towards something beyond the present world ; and consequently the 
source of no consolation. The term translated Redeemer means Vin- 
dicator, Avenger, and applies to God. Job expresses a confident ex- 
pectation that God would yet appear and vindicate the justice of his 
cause as well as his integrity ; which is clone accordingly, but not to 
the extent that the sufferer anticipates. Thus we agree with those 
who refer the passage to something temporal — to the vindication of 
Job's character ; without denying that the poet has also put into the 
words a glimmering conception of another state. 

The objections made to this view are weak and invalid, such as "the 
writer possessed whatever knowledge the Jew T ish nation had with 
respect to a Messiah and a future state." 2 Doubtless he did possess 
this knowledge ; and yet it cannot be shown that the belief of a 
future state at the time we have fixed the writer, went beyond what 
has now been assigned as the meaning of the passage. If more be 
attributed to Moses and the former prophets, to David and Solomon, 
or any others, it is so assigned incorrectly ; being based on erroneous 
interpretations of passages. Again, when we are reminded that "the 
patriarchs from whom the tradition of divine truths had descended to 

1 See Noyes's Translation of the Book of Job, p. 144. et seqq., 2)d edition. 
3 Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, vol. i. p. 185. 



736 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Job," confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth, and 
desired a better country, that is, a heavenly one," 1 two things are over- 
looked or misapprehended, viz. that Job was most probably not a 
Jewish patriarch ; and that, even if he were, the writer of the book 
merely makes Job the vehicle of communicating his own sentiments. 
The assumption, moreover, that this passage was " dictated by the 
Spirit of prophecy " to the patriarch Job, who did not understand 
" the full import and extent of what he was moved" to speak 2 , is 
wholly gratuitous. When it is also insinuated, that the sense by 
which the words are referred to Messiah and the resurrection, to a 
future state of happiness in the enjoyment of God, is "required, even 
necessitated, by them taken in their fair meaning and connection," 3 we 
utterly deny that the sense in question is required. Where is the 
Redeemer ever called ?N3, Goel, blood-avenger, in the Old Testament? 
Out of the forty-four places in which that participle occurs in the 
Hebrew Bible, it is nowhere applied to the Messiah. It is often 
tropically applied to God as redeeming and delivering men from the 
bondage of Egypt, from the Babylonish exile, &c. (Exod. iii. 6. ; 
Isa, xliii. 1.; Psal. cvi. 10.) ; but it is not once employed as an epithet 
of the Messiah. The meaning attributed by Dr. Smith to the words 
D-1pJ "isy ?y, viz. lie shall arise in triumph over the ruins of mortality, is 
unauthorised and erroneous. " He shall arise upon the dust," i. e. he 
shall appear after lam dead, or literally arise over the grave. In like 
manner, his version, even from my body, is incorrect. 



CHAP. XIII. 

ON THE BOOK OF PSALMS. 



The general title of all the Psalms in the Hebrew text is D^niji, 
songs of praise, because they are occupied with the praises of God. 
At the conclusion of the Davidic Psalms, the epithet rri^S^l, prayers, 
is applied to them generally. (Psal. lxxii. 20.) The collection is styled 
by the Rabbins D*?nfl "lgp, D"9fl or p?fl "1§D, book of hymns. In the 
Roman edition of the LXX., taken from the Codex Vaticanus, this 
book is merely styled i^aX/W, Psalms ; but in the Alexandrian MS. 
it is entitled ■^raX.rrjpLov per' whals, the Psalter with odes or hymns. 
There is no good reason for thinking that the name DniDTD. once 
obtained as the title instead of the present D"9i"in, as a writer in Kitto's 
Cyclopaedia imagines. The book is a collection of a hundred and 
fifty poems of unequal length, from two verses, like the hundred and 
seventeenth, to nearly two hundred, as the hundred and nineteenth. 
It is divided into five books, — in imitation, as some think, of the Pen- 
tateuch, — which are marked by doxologies at the close. The first 
book, *in^ "igp, comprises Psal. i. — xli. and concludes thus : " Blessed 
be the Lord God of Israel from everlasting to everlasting. Amen 
and Amen." (xli. 13.) The second book, >)& I3p, includes Psal. xlii. 

1 Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, vol. i. p. 186. 
8 Ibid. ^ IbicL p> 187< 



On the Book of Psalms. 737 

— lxxii., and ends with the words, "Blessed be the Lord God of 
Israel, who only doeth wondrous things. And blessed be his glorious 
name for ever : and let the whole earth be filled with his glory. 
Amen and Amen. The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended." 
(lxxii. 18 — 20.) It is absurd to regard this with Bishop Horsley as 
the close of the 72nd Psalm, and not of a division of the whole book. 
He mistakes the meaning altogether when he writes, " The sense is, 
that David the son of Jesse had nothing to pray for, or to wish, 
beyond the great things described in this psalm. Nothing can be 
more animated than this conclusion. Having described the blessings 
of Messiah's reign he closes the whole with this magnificent doxology," 
&c. &c. l Such view of the doxology is wholly incorrect, besides being 
connected with an erroneous interpretation of the psalm itself. The 
third book, "^'w 155, embraces Psalms lxxiii. — lxxxix. and terminates 
thus : " Blessed, be the Lord for evermore. Amen and Amen." 
(lxxxix. 52.) The fourth book, Til"! ~)W, includes Psalms xc. — cvi., 
concluding with the doxology, " Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, 
from everlasting to everlasting ; and let all the people say, Amen. 
Praise ye the Lord." (cvi. 48.) The fifth book, Wq l?p, extends 
from Psalm cvii. to cl., terminating with, " Praise ye the Lord." 

The division into five books is of great antiquity, being recognised 
in the Septuagint version. But whatever partitions have been 
made in the collection, it constituted but one book in the canon ; 
whence Peter in Acts i. 20. quotes it as the book of Psalms ; and it is 
accordingly enumerated as a single book in all catalogues of the Old 
Testament Scriptures. 

Little value attaches to this five-fold division. Another classifica- 
tion might be more useful, if it were based on internal character, or 
even on external form. But it is difficult to obtain a good principle 
of classification. The contents are so varied, the transitions from 
one method to another so sudden, the changes of feeling and expres- 
sion so rapid, that the different poems cannot be strictly classified. 
De Wette arranges them thus : — 

1. Hymns in praise of God ; (a) as God of nature and of man, 
viii. civ. cxlv. ; (b) as God of nature and national God, xix. xxix. 
xxxiii. lxv. xciii. cxxxv. cxxxvi. cxxxix. cxlvii. ; (c) as national God, 
xlvii. lxvi. lxvii. lxxv. ; (d) as Saviour and friend, of Israel, xlvi. 
xlviii. lxxvi. ; of individuals, xviii. xxx. cxxxviii. 

2. National Psalms, referring to ancient national history, and the 
people's relation to Jehovah, lxxviii. cv. cvi. cxiv. 

3. Psalms of Zion and of the temple, xv. xxiv. lxviii. lxxxi. 
lxxxvii. cxxxii. cxxxiv. cxxxv. 

4. Psalms relating to the king, ii. xx. xxi. xlv. lxxii. ex. 

5. Psalms containing the supplications and complaints of the pious 
distressed, (a) Personal, vii. xi. xxii. lv. lvi. cix. (&) National, 
xliv. lxxiv. lxxix. lxxx. exxxvii. (c) Personal and national combined, 
lxix. lxxvii. cii. (d) Reflections on the wickedness of the world, x. 

1 Critical notes upon the Psalms, note on verse 20. of lxxii. 
VOL. II. 3 B 



738 Introduction to the Old Testament 

xii. xiv. xxxvi. (e) Didactic Psalms on the retributions of life, 
xxxvii. xlix. lxxiii. (f) Thanksgiving for deliverance, xxxiv. xl. 

6. Religious and moral Psalms, (a) Odes to Jehovah, xc. cxxxix. 
(h) Expressions of religious conviction, hope, confidence, &c. xxiii. 
xci. cxxi. cxxvii. cxxviii. (c) Development of religious or moral 
ideas, i. cxxxiii. {d) Poems containing religious doctrine, xxxii. 1. 
(e) Proverbs in an alphabetical series, cxix. 1 

This division, founded on the nature of their contents, is too com- 
plex and minute for practical purposes. 

In relation to the degree of inspiration and mode in which they are 
expressed, he divides them into hymns and odes, poems, elegies, 
didactic poems. 2 Tholuck 3 is inclined to divide them according to 
the subject-matter, into songs of praise, of thanksgiving, of complaint, 
and of instruction. 

A better classification, as well as a simpler one, is founded on the 
tone of pious feeling expressed, according to which all may be put 
into three divisions. 1. Psalms of praise and thanksgiving, as viii. 
xviii. xix. xxiii. xxix. &c. 2. Psalms expressing complaint and pe- 
nitence or sadness of spirit, as iii. — vi. &c. 3. Didactic Psalms, as i. 
xiv. xv. xxxii. xxxvii. &c. These three kinds arise from different 
tones of feeling — the joyous, sad, and calm. 

Between the Hebrew original and the Greek and Vulgate versions 
there is some diversity in the arrangement and distribution of the 
Psalms. The following table will show the variations : — 

Hebrew Text. LXX. and Vulg. 

Psalms ix. and x. - - - Psalm ix. 

xi. — cxiii. - x. — cxii. 

cxiv. & ex. - cxiii. 

cxvi. - - - cxiv. cxt. 

cxvii. — cxlvi. ... cxvi. — cxiv. 

cxlvii. ... cxlvi. & cxlvii. 

cxlviii. — cl. ... cli. (apocryphal). 

Hebrew MSS. also present some diversity in the distribution of the 
Psalms. Thus the 42nd and 43rd are joined together as one composi- 
tion in thirty-seven codices of Kennicott and De Rossi. This arrange- 
ment is adopted by several critics, as Ewald, De Wette, Von 
Lengerke, Sommer, and Olshausen ; while others reject it, as Hengs- 
tenberg and Keil. We have little hesitation in adopting the former 
opinion ; as both Psalms form one composition of three stanzas. 
Hengstenberg's reasons for keeping them apart are far-fetched and 
artificial. 4 In like manner, the ninth and tenth are, after the example 
of the LXX. and Vulgate, placed together by some critics as one 
poem. The grounds for so doing are well stated by Hupfeld 5 , and 
are quite satisfactory. 

The 19th is divided into two by several critics, viz. into verses 
2 — 7. and 8 — 15. The nature of the contents and other circum- 
stances justify this view. The last half forms a complete, inde- 

1 Commentar ueber die Psalmen, Einleitung, p. 3. 4th edition. 

2 Einleitung, p. 401. 3 Commentar, u. s. w. Einleitung, p. xxv. 

4 Commentar ueber die Psalmen, vol. ii. p. 351. et seqq. 

5 Die Psalmen, vol. i. pp. 168, 169. 



On the Book of Psalms. 739 

pendent composition of itself, and is of later origin than the first. 1 In 
like manner Ewald, Sommer, and Olshausen separate the 24th into 
two distinct compositions. But although the parts do not agree 
well together, there appears to us no valid reason for putting them 
asunder. 

With the exception of thirty-four, viz. i. ii. x. xxxiii. xliii. lxxi. 
xci. xciii. — xcvii. xcix. civ. — cvii. cxi. — cxix. cxxxv. — cxxxvii. cxlvi. 
— cl., called in the Talmud orphan Psalms, all have shorter or longer 
inscriptions or titles. To such titles great obscurity belongs. They 
refer to the poem itself, characterising perhaps its nature ; and are 
sometimes accompanied by the name of the author and the historical 
occasion of the composition. Sometimes they consist merely of the 
author's name. Others are musical or liturgical notices. 

"ViDtp, Mizmor, song or poem, with a musical accompament. This 
word is prefixed to many Psalms, but seldom alone as in xcviii. In 
c. it is connected with nnin?, for thanks ; in xcii. it is joined with the 
object of the Psalm. 

y$ 3 Shir, song or ode, occasionally united to the preceding term, as 
in xcii., perhaps pleonastically. In xlv. occurs niTlJ "W, song of 
loves or loveliness, i. e. a lovely song. Others interpret a song of love, 
which is less likely, because the adjective in the feminine plural 
seems to be used for a substantive. We do not agree with Heng- 
stenberg, that the words " can only be rendered" a song of the 
beloved ones, meaning the lilies or king's daughters mentioned in the 
context. 2 The same title prefixed to ni?y»D, in Psalms cxx. — 
cxxxiv., is translated in the authorised version a song of degrees. In 
cxxi. it is ni?yg)2 instead of ni'py.sn. What the meaning of the 
phrase is, is quite uncertain. The renderings of the LXX. and 
Vulgate throw no light upon it: a>8r) rcov dva/3a6fxa)v, canticum 
graduum. Perhaps they refer to the opinion of the Jews that the 
Psalms in question were sung upon the fifteen steps which led to 
the women's court in the temple ; but this is untenable. Others 
suppose that they were pilgrim-songs which the Jews chanted on 
their journeys to the yearly feasts at Jerusalem. " This explanation," 
says Hengstenberg, "is undoubtedly the correct -one." The con- 
tents, however, do not support it. Others again think that they 
were songs of return from the captivity to the Holy Land. But this 
is equally unsuitable to the matter of some. Luther understood the 
expression as signifying an elevation of the voice, of the key, &c. 
But that is quite improbable. According to Gesenius 3 , it denotes the 
gradually progressive rhythm of thought peculiar to these Psalms, a 
phrase or clause in one sentence being repeated in the next with an 
addition, forming a kind of climax or progression both in the ideas 
and terms ; for example : 

1. I lift up mine eyes to the hills 
From whence cometh my help. 

2. My help cometh from Jehovah, 
The Creator of heaven and earth. 

1 See Hupfeld, pp. 405, 406. 2 Commentar, u. s. w. ii. p. 408. 

s Allgem. Literat. Zeitung, 1812, No. 205. 
3 B 2 



740 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

3. He will not suffer thy foot to be moved ; 
Thy Keeper slumbers not. 

4. Behold, neither slumbers nor sleeps 
The Keeper of Israel. 

5. Jehovah is thy Keeper; 

Jehovah, thy shade, is on thy right hand. 

6 

7. Jehovah keeps thee from all ill, 
Keeps thy soul. 

8. Jehovah keeps thine outgoing and incoming 
From henceforth even for ever. 1 

But it is impossible to discover this peculiarity in them all ; while 
it frequently appears in others not belonging to the fifteen. Heng- 
stenberg indulges in an ingenious hypothesis for the purpose of 
retaining the genuineness of the titles, and the old explanation of 
pilgrim-songs. Inasmuch as four of them are ascribed to David 
(cxxii. cxxiv. cxxxi. cxxxiii.), and one to Solomon (cxxvii.), he 
decides that these were sung by the people as they went up to 
Jerusalem before the captivity, conjecturing that they were made 
the basis of a whole series or system designed for the same use after 
the return. An inspired writer added accordingly ten Psalms of his 
own in a studied and artificial manner. All this hypothesis is nothing 
but improbable conjecture which has nothing to recommend it ; on 
the contrary, its artificiality determines its rejection. 

The title again contains the mere designation of the author, as 
*rn?, in Psalms xxv. — xxviii. xxxv. xxxvii. ciii. cxxxviii. cxliv. and 
TVtibvp, lxxii. ; an announcement of the writer with the historical 
occasion, xxxiv. ; an appellation of the Psalm together with the 
author, "in? llDTP, Psalms xv. xxiii. xxix. cxli. cxliii. ; llEJP TH?, 
xxiv. ci. ex. ; *|!?K? I'VDp, 1. lxxiii. lxxix. lxxxii. ; 1*3ta? 1H? " 1 ^t*3, 
a Psalm of David to bring to remembrance, xxxviii. ; 1p? d $5Pj x vi. ; 
in 1 ? rhzn, xvii. lxxxvi. ; D^nS^n &# n^o 1 ? n^Bfl, xc. ; iy$ rrpniji, cxlv. ; 
ta"B>0 Tnb, xxxii. ; SJD&6 ^?"tf»D, lxxiv. lxxviii., and s rn?^ii \W$\ hvtffa, 
lxxxix. ; 1H 1 ? -lintP "M?, cviii. ; *$$) "fo|l? "M?, lxxxiii. ; nip >}}h Ttoflp 1H& 
xlviii. ; *W? niatP nip ifih, lxxxvii. ; nil 1 ? ribvnn 1£>, cxxii. cxxiv. 
cxxxi. cxxxiii. ; nb^b Tfhyptj vtf 3 cxxvii. ; ^b n^an na.jq -i^ itotf?, 
xxx. 2 With regard to Michtam in some of these prefatory designations, 
Psal. xvi. lvi. — lx., it has been understood as meaning golden, i. e. of 
peculiar excellence ; or written in golden characters like the Moallakat 
of the Arabians. Why the Psalms so designated should have this 
title of distinction more than others, it is impossible to say. They do 
not merit it preeminently. Others interpret sculptured or engraved 
as on some monumental tablet. Hence the LXX. render o-ttjXo- 
jpacpia or sis aT7]\oypa<f)lav ; and the Vulgate, tituli inscriptio, in tituli 
inscriptionem. There is nothing in their contents determining them 
especially to such a use. Others, deriving the noun from a verb to hide, 
give it the sense of hidden, intimating either that the Psalms to which 

1 See De Wette's Commentar, u. s. w. Einleit. pp. 56, 57. 
I See Keil's Einleitung, p. 384. 



On the Book of Psalms. 741 

it is prefixed were written by David in exile ; or, as Hengstenberg 
supposes, a mystery or secret, indicating the depth of doctrinal and 
spiritual import in these sacred compositions. The contents do not 
warrant either of these hypotheses. Gesenius, De Wette, and others 
explain the term simply as a writing by interchange of 2 with D, so 
that the word is equivalent to 38?P. This yields a suitable meaning. 
Yet Hengstenberg and Olshausen object that the two words 203 and 
Dfi3 are independent roots which never pass into one another, and 
therefore they reject the interpretation. It is the best that has been 
proposed. Hupfeld's recent investigations have thrown little light on 
the word. 1 

With regard to Tepliillah, which also appears in two Psalms with 
the name of the writer, and without it in xc, cxlii., it means prayer, 
poem addressed to the Deity. In the 142d Psalm it is in apposition 
with Mascil. 

Tehillah, song of praise, is prefixed only to the 145th. The word 
was originally used in a more restricted sense, a hymn ; but was 
afterwards extended to all spiritual songs. 

Mascil. Besides occurring in inscriptions, this term appears once 
in the text, Psal. xlvii. 8. The LXX. translate awsasas or els 
cruvscriv (avvsrcos, xlvii. 8.) ; the Vulgate intellectus (intelligentice), or 
ad intellectum {sapienter, xlvii. 8.). The common interpretation is 
didactic poem, from ?3b', to understand ; but this does not accord with 
the nature of all the Psalms so designated. Gesenius explains it a 
didactic poem, so that this special word was afterwards transferred to 
other kinds of odes. 2 Ewald 3 explains it a skilful, melodious poem, 
equivalent to fine, ingenious, finished. It appears to us more probable 

that the noun was a general term for poem, as the Arabic V*, pro- 
perly stands for intelligentia, and afterwards for poesis. Poets were the 
sages, learned men of the ancient world, poetce docti. De Wette 4 
prefers this interpretation. 

Many titles appear to be of a musical or liturgical kind, as — 
n^E) 1 ?, which occurs in fifty-five inscriptions ; the word itself before 
the designation of the poem (lxvi.), or the name of the poet (xi. xiii. 
xiv. xix. — xxi. xxxi. xxxvi. xl. — xlii. xliv. xlvi. xlvii. xlix. lxiv. lxv. 
lxviii. lxx. lxxxv. cix. cxxxix. cxl.), and historical notices (xviii. li. 
Hi.), making up the title ; or the word occurring after different 
notices referring to the nature of the Psalms, their authors, occa- 
sion, and object. Some consider the word to be the Syriac infinitive, 
to be sung. But the more common opinion is that it is the participle 
of the verb nV3, to preside over, used in a musical sense 1 Chron. xv. 
21. It appears to designate the superintendent of the musical choir, 
or head singer. In this case the 7 refers to the giving of it over to 
the chief musician for public exhibition. Olshausen 5 has thrown 
some difficulties in the way of this interpretation which are not for- 

1 Die Psalmen, p. 308. et seqq. 2 Lexicon Manuale, s. v. ^>3{J>. 

3 Die poetischen Biicher des alten Bundes, erster Theii, p. 25. 

4 Commentar, u. s. w. p. 27. 

5 Die Psalmen erklart, u. s. w. Einleituuo;, pp. 24, 25. 

3 B 3 



742 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

midable. It is certainly usual to regard ? in the titles of Psalms as 
indicative of authorship. Accordingly this commentator takes it 
so here, the author of the musical accompaniment or of the Psalms 
themselves. But the proposed interpretation is less likely than the 
common one. 

The addition to 03HB& of n'w^W, or WW by, (lxi.), refers also to 
the music, with the music of stringed instruments as an accompaniment. 
The latter term n^J? is in the singular number and construct form, 
on a stringed instrument, with an instrumental accompaniment ; but 
should probably be pointed as a plural. The addition of JV^pipD by_ 
(vi. xii.) refers to the time, upon the eighth or octave. Of the appendage 
n^in bil (viii. lxxxi. lxxxiv.), the most probable meaning is an air 
or tune borrowed from the Philistine city of Gath. Gesenius under- 
stands it of an instrument invented or used there. The LXX. have 
virsp Twv Xtjvcov, and the Vulgate, pro torcularibus, both deriving it 
from Gath, a wine-press. 

Another appellation occurring in titles along with O-Vj)?? is J-lh-ll*? 
(xxxix.), or i-in-1T"py (lxii. lxxvii.), which probably refers to the musical 
choir of Jeduthun, who was one of David's chief musicians. It is 
used of his family or descendants, not of himself. Some, as Heng- 
stenberg, think that it refers to himself 'in the 39th Psalm ; and to his 
family or descendants in the other two Psalms, since the prefixes or 
prepositions are somewhat different ; but it is better to take them 
synonymously. That the phrase refers to a tune or air, as Ewald l 
thinks, is less likely. 

Another appendage to W)j?h is nfeb by (liii.lxxxviii.). The LXX. 
do not translate it. Perhaps it denotes a musical instrument. Some, 
comparing the Ethiopic, find it nearly equivalent to the Greek 
KiOdpa, or harp. Others think that it refers to a tune or air. Heng- 
stenberg's interpretation of the phrase, according to which it is an 
enigmatical enunciation of the subject of the Psalm, upon disease, the 
spiritual malady with which all mankind are infected, is wholly un- 
tenable. In the 88th Psalm it is followed by niaj??, which appears to 
denote for singing, to be sung. Ewald, after the LXX. and Vulgate, 
connects it closely with the preceding, to sing after machaloth. 2 
Hengstenberg's hypothesis concerning it regarding the tribulation 
must be rejected. 3 

Another appendage to the same title of the president of the singers 
is rri^nan ?$ (v.), the likeliest explanation of which is, after flutes, 
ivith the accompaniment of flutes. Hengstenberg, after the LXX. and 
Vulgate, refers it to the subject of the Psalm, as to inheritances, which 
is less probable. Hupfeld has shown that flutes may have been used 
along with other instruments in the worship of God. The use of b$ 
seems equivalent to ?%.. 

Another accompaniment of the same word is }3? n-ID'Pj; (ix.), an 
expression very obscure. It is rendered by the LXX. vTrsp r&v 
Kpv(f)LG>v tov vlov ; and by the Vulgate pro occidtis filii. Some alter 

1 Die poctischen Biicher, u. s. w. i. p. 176. 2 Ibid. pp. 174, 175. 

3 See on Psalm 88th. 



On the Book of Psalms. 743 

the present reading. We prefer putting the two words ftltt ?V to- 
gether, ri\ftW, and taking the term so formed with Forkel, Gesenius, 
and De Wette, as the designation of a mode, similar to the Jungfrau- 
Weiss, Virgin-mode, of the German master-singers (np?j;, virgin). 
In this manner it is brought into conformity with mc6y in the title 
of the 46th Psalm. What 3? means it is hard to tell, to the son. 
Perhaps it was the first word of some other poem, in the style or to 
the air of which this Psalm was composed. The various opinions re- 
specting the title may be seen in Hupfeld. 1 

Another appendage of ^.W> is "in^n n^tf W (xxii.) after the hind of 
the morning. Some think that it relates to the subject of the Psalm. 
Hengstenberg supposes accordingly that the hind is a poetical figure 
for persecuted innocence ; and morning, for deliverance from distress. 
Others regard the phrase as denoting the rising sun, to which the 
Arabian poets give the name gazelle. It is best to look upon the 
phrase as the title or principal thing in some other poem, to the 
melody of which this Psalm was intended to be sung. Hence it de- 
notes an air. Other interpretations may be seen in Rosenmuller. 

Another accompaniment of the same is D^fT] D?X T\iV 7j? (lvi.),«the 
meaning of which is exceedingly obscure. The LXX. translate 
virsp tov \aov rod airb rcov dylcov fi£/u,afcpv/j,/jLsvov ; the Vulgate, pro 
populo, qui a Sanctis large f actus est. The words are probably the 
commencement of some other ode, to the air of which this Psalm was 
to be set. We should translate them, after dove of the distant tere- 
binths, reading D?X as if it should be pointed in the plural, DpX, or be 
read DV?8. Very improbable appears to us the enigmatical explana- 
tion of Hengstenberg, concerning a mute dove of distant persons : the 
dove being an emblem of suffering innocence, the second word mean- 
ing uncomplaining submission, and the distant ones the Philistines. 
It thus describes David an innocent sufferer among strangers. 

Another appendage of the word denoting the chief musician is ?J> 
D*$#B> (xlv. lxix. lxxx.), ffiW ?}) (lx.). Perhaps both are the same, 
the one being the plural of the other. Gesenius thinks that the noun 
means an instrument, so named perhaps from its lily-formed shape ; 
perhaps cymbalum, cymbal. Olshausen regards it as a designation of 
the tune or air. Hengstenberg takes it as an enigmatical description 
of the subject of the Psalm or Psalms, which is improbable. With 
}^-1^, in Psal. lx., and &IWW 3 in Psal. lxxx., is connected the difficult 
word h-njj. Hengstenberg and others think that it means the law, 
which is called the testimony in 2 Kings xi. 12. Gesenius is in- 
clined to take it in the general sense of revelation, poem, as the poetic 
writers of the Psalms often appeal to a revelation. More probably, 
as we think, does it refer to an air or tune. 

Another accompaniment of the same word is rin^Fr;>K (lvii. lviii. 
lix. lxxv.), destroy not, which was probably the commencement or 
title of some unknown poem, to the melody of which these Psalms 
• were sung. Hengstenberg refers it to the subject of the Psalm to 
which it is prefixed ; a supposition wholly untenable. 

1 Die Psalmen, vol. i. p. 68. 
3b 4 



744 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

H?5 occurs seventy-one times in the Psalms (in thirty-nine Psalms), 
and three times in Habakkuk, commonly at the end of a short 
stanza ; but in Psal. lv. 20. lvii. 4., Hab. iii. 3. 9. in the middle of 
the verse, yet at the end of a member of it. It is needless to enu- 
merate the different opinions respecting it. It must not be considered 
as belonging to the text and connected with the sense, but as a 
musical sign. What that sign is, is very uncertain. According to 
Gesenius \, it denotes a pause, intimating that the singing should 
cease, and the stringed instruments be introduced ; while Hengsten- 
berg refers it to the sense as well as the music ; a pause in the latter 
coming in where the feeling requires a resting-place. Thus it is of 
equal import as regards the sense and the music. Both interpreta- 
tions rest on the same etymology, Tv$, to rest, the change of the 
harder & to the softer D being common. To this etymology Keil 2 
has objected that there is no trace of the interchange of these letters 
in pure Hebrew, but only in Aramaean, and later Aramaising writers 
like Jeremiah. It has also been shown by Sommer 3 , that the sense 
given by Gesenius does not suit in many places. Its position at the 
end of Psalms is contrary to Hengstenberg's hypothesis, as it would 
be understood of course that the music should cease at the end of a 
hymn. As this critic thinks it indicates a pause in the sense, he 
asserts that the translators who omit it certainly do wrong, a remark 
with which we have no sympathy, as in our view it has nothing to 
do with the sense. Objectionable however as the words of Heng- 
stenberg are, those of his disciple are far more so. Alexander, im- 
proving on his master, says, " like the titles it invariably forms part 
of the text, and. its omission by some editors and translators is a 
mutilation of the Word of God. 4 Such offensive and dogmatical ortho- 
doxy needs no castigation. 

The most copious investigation of the meaning of the word is that 
of Sommer, whose opinion is adopted and largely illustrated by Keil. 
Both these critics come to the conclusion that it denotes the falling 
in of the sound of the priests' trumpets into the psalm-singing and 
the playing of the stringed instruments by the Levites, expressive of 
an urgent invocation of Jehovah. Hence it occurs only in certain 
Psalms ; and even there in peculiar places where the poet has given 
utterance to the warmest aspirations of his heart, the liveliest feelings 
and hopes, or the deepest complainings of his soul before God, and 
by that means would secure a hearing. This exposition is founded 
upon, and was suggested by, the Greek translation hicv^raX/jba, inter- 
lude. Notwithstanding the ingenuity with which it is brought for- 
Avard, and the great pains bestowed upon its development, we confess 
that it appears to us most uncertain. It is very artificial and com- 
plex. Hengstenberg has made some objections to it, which are not 
met by the counter remarks of Keil. 8 

It is probable that the word has reference to the musical accom- 

1 Lexicon Manuale. 2 In Havernick's Einleit. iii. p. 385. 

3 Biblische Abhandlungen, i. p. 1. et seqq. 

4 The Psalms translated and explained, vol. i. p. 22. 

5 In Hiivcrniek's Einleit. iii. p. 120. et seqq. 



On the Book of Psalms. 745 

paniment. It may be derived from 7?D, to elevate, and mean for 
elevation, up, i. e. loud or clear. It is admitted that this derivation is 
far from being certain ; that it is open to some objections in a verbal 
view. We cannot see the force, however, of one objection urged 
against it by Hengstenberg *, viz. that in Psal. ix. 17. it comes after 
Higgaion, meditation ; because we hold that meaning of Higgaion to be 
untenable. Both together in this verse mean the music loud. Thus 
Higgaion is derived from nan, to make a noise. The same sense is 
suitable in the only other place where higgaion occurs, viz. xcii. 4., 
rousing, loud music. We reject Keil's explanation, piano. 

A word appended to some titles is T3|n? (xxxviii. lxx.) The 
LXX. represent it by sis avafivrjcnv ; the Vulgate, in like manner, 
have in rememorationem. The most natural explanation is for re- 
membrance, to bring to remembrance, to recall the remembrance of 
the speaker to God. Michaelis interprets it at the offering 2 ; which 
is founded, as De Wette appositely remarks, on the alleged but un- 
certain signification of T3Tn, to offer as a sacrifice. Yet Ewald sub- 
stantially adopts the view of Michaelis, explaining the word to use as 
a frankincense-offering and (at the offering of frankincense). 

In the title of the 60th Psalm, IS 1 ? 1 ? occurs with DMp. The literal 
meaning of the word is to teach. Probably it means to be taught, to 
be committed to memory. Compare 2 Sam. i. 18. 

The genuineness of the titles has been debated. Some contend 
that they are an original part of the Psalms to which they are pre- 
fixed, having proceeded from the writers themselves. This opinion 
was probably held by all the fathers, with one exception, viz. Theodore 
of Mopsuestia. In modern times it has been adopted by Clauss, 
Tholuck, Hengstenberg, Delitzsch, Keil, Alexander. Vogel stands 
on the opposite side, since he denied the genuineness of all. Ber- 
tholdt, De Wette, Hitzig, Ewald, Von Lengerke, Olshausen, take 
the same view substantially. In favour of the titles it has been 
alleged, — 

1. That it was customary with Hebrew and Arabian poets to 
prefix their names to their own poems. 

2. The fact that all the Psalms are not provided with them, and 
that the inscriptions present the greatest variety of form, contents, 
length, shortness, &c. Had later collectors prefixed them by conjec- 
ture, it is argued that they would not only have furnished many with 
them that are now without, proceeding on the ground of their con- 
tents, which would easily have led to the probable conclusion ; but 
would also have given to them greater uniformity. 

3. The contents of the Psalms favour the same view. The musical 
notices had already become unintelligible to the post-exile period, and 
are found in no later Psalms than those of David and his singers. The 
others relating to the character, authors, historical occasion, and im- 
mediate design, show that they are original and genuine, by the fact 
that they are often confirmed by the historical books without being 
taken from them by mere conjecture ; and also that they agree well 
with the subject-matter, contain no notices demonstrably false, but only 

1 Commentar, u. s. w. vol. i. pp. 62, 63. % Rritisches Collegium, u. s. w. p. 419. 



746 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

such as have been deemed erroneous or unsuitable because of wrong- 
dogmatic, sesthetical, and critical prepossessions. 1 

These arguments are not valid or convincing. We believe that the 
weight of evidence is on the other side of the question. 

The first consideration has some force, but not so much as has been 
thought. The titles in 2 Sam. xxiii. 1., and Isa. xxxviii. 9., 2 Sam. 
xxii. 1., favour the conclusion. It may have been the custom for 
prophets to designate their predictions by their names ; yet that 
does not prove it to have been followed by Hebrew poets generally. 
The poems in Exod. xv., Deut. xxxii. xxxiii., Judges v., contain the 
names of the poets, but only in connection with the narrative, not in 
a proper title. 

There is no force in the second argument. The authors of the 
titles had no conjectures to give in regard to the titles of many 
Psalms, and therefore they affixed none. The great variety of inscrip- 
tions is owing to the various persons from whom they proceeded. 

The unintelligibility of the titles in the post-exile period rests 
upon the circumstance of their being so to the Septuagint translators. 
But another and better reason may be found to account for it in their 
case, than remoteness of time from the date of composition. De 
Wette has remarked, that the remoteness of the Egyptian translators 
from Jerusalem, and their separation from the temple-service there, 
prevented them from becoming accquainted with devotional music and 
other similar matters, for which reason they failed to understand the 
titles. 2 

That the historical notices in the titles are confirmed by the histo- 
rical books, and were independent of them in their origin, may be 
allowed in some cases. In others, we must believe that they were 
derived from the Old Testament books themselves, as in Psal. xxxiv. 
1. compared with 1 Sam. xxi. 13. ; Psal. liv. 2. compared with 
1 Sam. xxiii. 19. It need not be urged against this by Keil, that 
notices are wanting in some Psalms which owed their origin to histo- 
rical circumstances (xlvi. xlviii. lxxxvii. &c.) or presented rich ma- 
terial for historical conjectures (xx. xliii. lxi. &c); while they are 
found in other Psalms whose contents furnished no ground for them 
(xxxiv. liv. lvii. lx. &c). 

The assertion that the titles agree well in every case with the sub- 
ject-matter of the Psalms to which they belong, is one which has been 
directly contradicted by many critics. To prove the truth of it 
would require a minute and particular examination of all Psalms to 
which historical notices are prefixed, for the purpose of rendering it 
palpable. This has been done for the most part by Hengstenberg 
and Keil. Yet it is impossible for any impartial critic to believe that 
they have succeeded in making good their position. Notwithstanding 
the ingenuity of Henstenberg, in conforming the contents to the 
titles, he has utterly failed in several cases. Having taken up an 
untenable position, he cannot maintain it. It appears to us unques- 
tionable that the titles prove to be occasionally incorrect. Both the 

1 Keil's Einleit. pp. 385, 386. 2 Coninientar, u. s. w. Einleit. p. 21. 



On the Book of Psalms. 747 

author and the occasion are sometimes given erroneously. It is easy 
to aver, that doctrinal, aesthetical, and critical prejudices lead to the 
conclusion now stated. Such prepossessions are not all on one side. 
We know no commentator on the Psalms who has more of them 
than Hengstenberg, by whom they have been transmitted to his fol- 
lowers, Keil and Alexander. Thus we look upon the title of the 
34th Psalm as incorrect. The Psalm has no relation to the conduct 
of David at the time specified. It is evidently of later origin, having 
been written for a liturgical purpose. In lie manner, the title of 
the 54th is not justified by the contents, being incorrectly taken from 
1 Sam. xxiii. 19. The fifth verse alone shows the notice at the com- 
mencement to be untenable. We are also inclined to think that the 
title and occasion of the 51st Psalm, as given at the beginning of it* 
are suspicious. How can the last two verses agree with David or 
David's time ? The composition was much later than David. 

Some critics have taken a middle course with respect to the titles 
of the Psalms, supposing that to the ancient and genuine ones, others 
have been added more recent and often false. Accordingly, Rosen- 
mtiller and Stark consider all the titles relating to music of late 
origin. It is impossible to separate the genuine originals from the 
later ones by any principle which can claim approval. As long as 
some are thought to be spurious, all are liable to the same suspicion. 

Various inscriptions now prefixed to Psalms seem to have arisen 
from a combination of notices taken out of different sources. This 
is appai*ent in the case of the 88th Psalm, whose title has the three 
nearly synonymous terms "VE?"', "liEtJP, ? ,| ?t r "0 ; and Heman the Ezrahite 
is named as the author, besides the sons of Korah. It would also 
appear that copies did not always agree in relation to the titles. Thus 
in the LXX. inscriptions appear which are wanting in the Hebrew 
text. Occasionally too those now found in that version represent a 
different title from the one in the Hebrew. 

In summing up our observations on this point, we rely on the 
following considerations against the originality of the titles. 

1. The inscriptions are sometimes at variance with the contents. 
This is admitted by most. Even Tholuck feels the force of it so 
much in Psal. xiv. xxv. li. lxix. as to resort to the most gratuitous 
assumption that xiv. 7., xxv. 22., li. 20, 21., lxix. 35 — 37., are later 
additions which were appended when the Psalms in question were 
sung during the Babylonish captivity. To take the expressions in these 
verses figuratively or spiritually, as Calvin and Hengstenberg do, 
yields a sense altogether improbable. The Psalms belong to the 
captivity. 

2. The Greek and Syriac versions exhibit these titles with many 
variations. Thus the Hebrew inscription of xxvii. is in the Greek 
version, " before being annointed ;" while xciii. — xcvii. are furnished 
by the same version with inscriptions where the Hebrew has none. 
Now it may be that the ancient translators prefixed titles where none 
existed at first ; but they would hardly have altered them, had they 
considered them sacred or original. Surely they would have re- 
frained from tampering with what was genuine and authoritative. 



748 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

The conclusion at which we arrive is, that the titles proceeded 
from later persons than the authors themselves. It were rash to 
assert that all had this origin ; but by far the greater number must 
have arisen so. The individuals who put them there did so by tradi- 
tion and their own conjectures. Sometimes the former had deter- 
mined the author and occasion ; at other times persons followed their 
own judgment, taking occasionally the historical books of the Old 
Testament as a help. Under such circumstances, we cannot expect 
uniform accuracy. It is better to judge for ourselves than to follow 
them with implicit confidence. Some titles already existed, before 
the collectors of the five books began to put a number of Psalms 
together ; others proceeded from the collectors themselves ; while 
others may have been affixed by the person or persons who completed 
the canon. 

The following authors are named in the titles : — 

1. To Moses the 90th is attributed by a very ancient tradition. 
And we are inclined to believe that the inscription here is correct. 

2. To David 73 are assigned, viz. iii. — ix. xi. — xxxii. xxxiv. — xli. li. — 
Ixv. lxviii. — lxx. lxxxvi. ci. ciii. cviii. — ex. exxii. exxiv. exxxi. exxxiii. 
exxxviii. — clxv. We cannot believe that all these are rightly ascribed 
to him. Several undoubtedly do not belong to him ; while others are 
uncertain. Such, however, as are authentic show high poetic inspiration. 
Their variety too manifests a mind comprehensively endowed. In the 
hymn, the poem, the elegy, the didactic ode, the royal singer excels. 
Doubtless the various situations in which he was placed contributed 
to nurture the poetic genius, storing the mind and memory with 
images and illustrations drawn from very dissimilar sources. The 
many-sided singer of Israel appears in the manifold richness of his 
capacious heart. His writings express almost all varieties of feeling 
and spiritual experience, great depth and liveliness of sensibility, 
strong faith of the heroic order, hope in high exercise, depression, 
despondency, and all the moods of spirituality. The diction is also 
varied — difficult as well as easy of comprehension, soft, diffuse. It 
may be said that the characteristics of David's Psalms are softness, 
elegance, and pathos. Only occasionally does sublimity appear; 
as in the 18th and 19th. The majority of his odes are occupied 
with supplication and complaint : and these are not of the highest 
poetical merit. 

3. To Solomon are assigned lxxii. and exxvii. Of the former, 
however, he is rather the subject than the writer. The latter 
seems not to have been written by him. It is post-exilian. Pro- 
bably the conjecture assigning it to Solomon arose from referring the 
house in verse 1. to the temple, and the beloved of the Lord in verse 2. 
to Solomon. Compare 2 Sam. xii. 25. 

4. To Asaph are attributed 12 psalms, viz. 1. lxxiii. — lxxxiii. 
Asaph was David's chief musician, and an inspired psalmist besides, as 
we learn from the books of the Chronicles. Here again, it is certain that 
Asaph did not compose all that are given to him in the titles. Even 
Keil allows him but 7 out of the 12, viz. 1. lxxiii. lxxvii. lxxviii. 
lxxx. — lxxxii. Yet this number should be farther reduced. Most 



On the Booh of Psalms. 749 

of the twelve belong to a much later period than that of Asaph him- 
self. Hengstenberg and Keil think that all came from himself or 
from members of his family, among whom the gift and office of their 
ancestor were hereditary. It is arbitrary, however, to understand by 
Asaph sometimes himself and sometimes his descendants. 

5. The sons of Korah were a Levitical family of singers who still 
continued that employment in the reign of Jehoshaphat. (2 Chron. 
xx. 19.) Their head in David's time was Heman. (1 Chron. vi. 16. 
&c, ix. 19.) Eleven Psalms are ascribed to them, viz. xlii. xliv. — 
xlix. lxxxiv. lxxxv. lxxxvii. lxxxviii. Most of these are falsely at- 
tributed to the Korahites, certainly the 42nd Psalm ; though Tholuck 
and others strongly persist in maintaining the opposite. 1 

6. To Ethan the Ezrahite, one of David's musicians, is assigned 
the 89th Psalm. This is surely erroneous. The composition is much 
later, viz. after the Chaldean conquest. 

Fifty Psalms are anonymous, viz. i. ii. x. xxxiii. xliii. lxvi. lxvii. 
Ixxi. xci. — c. cii. civ. — cvi. cvii. cxi. — cxvi. cxvii. cxviii. cxix. cxx. 
cxxi. cxxiii. cxxvi. cxxviii. — cxxx. cxxxii. cxxxiv. cxxxv. cxxxvi. 
cxxxvii. cxlvi. cxlvii. — cl. Some of these were probably written by 
David, or belong to his time. The greater number are later. Many 
belong to the decaying period of the nation ; still more to the time of 
the captivity. In fixing their probable dates, it appears to us that 
Hengstenberg and Keil have made numerous mistakes, consisting 
chiefly in giving them a higher date than what properly belongs to 
them. 

It has been remarked, that none of the prophets are named as the 
authors of Psalms in the titles. The Septuagint indeed gives as 
authors Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, probably from con- 
jecture only. The circumstance in question has been regarded as 
unfavourable to the correctness of the tradition embodied in the 
titles. 

The question of Psalms having been composed in the Maccabean 
period has greatly divided the opinions of critics. It cannot be 
denied that there are some whose contents suit that age, such as 
44th, 60th, &c. &c. Rudinger, Hermann Van der Hardt, Venema, 
E. G. Bengel, Bertholdt, Paulus, Kaiser, Hitzig, Hesse, Olshausen, 
Von Lengerke, take the affirmative view. But there are opposing 
circumstances which render it very doubtful. The canon was closed 
before that time, according to all evidence existing on the subject. 
The prologue of the Greek translator of Jesus Sirach's book appears 
to imply that the grandfather mentioned in it lived at the commence- 
ment of the Maccabean time ; and yet in his days the law, the 
prophets, and the other books (the hagiographa) already existed. And 
how could Maccabean Psalms get into the first, second, and third 
books of the whole collection ? It is easy to conceive how they 
might have found their way into the last book ; but as to their recep- 
tion into the first, it is quite different. Another consideration is, 
that incorrect ideas respecting the origin of these new Psalms could 

1 See Tholuck's Uebersetzung mid Auslegung der Psalmen, u. s. w. pp. 212, 213. 



750 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

scarcely have got into such general currency within a few years as to 
be incorporated into the titles. How comes it also, that the language 
of the so-called Maccabean Psalms is as pure as that of the oldest, 
which belong to the time of David and Solomon ? How does it 
present so few traces of the degeneracy which appears in several of 
the late Old Testament books ? It cannot be explained on the prin- 
ciple of slavish imitation of the earlier. Again, the close agreement 
of single verses in these alleged Maccabean Psalms with various pas- 
sages in the prophetic writings belonging to an earlier period, es- 
pecially with Jeremiah, as well as with other parts of the Old 
Testament among which the Lamentations should be mentioned, is 
adverse to their Maccabean origin. We naturally think of the same 
period giving birth to writings distinguished by great mutual affi- 
nities. The likeness is so striking that Hitzig has been led to con- 
jecture similarity of authorship ; ascribing many Psalms to Jeremiah, 
a few to Isaiah. Putting these considerations together, we are 
inclined to dispute the Maccabean origin of any Psalms ; believing 
that they can be better accounted for in other ways. It is true that 
Olshausen 1 has recently tried to obviate some of these objections, 
but with little success. We agree on the whole with Gesenius, 
Hassler, De Wette, Hengstenberg, Keil, and others, in denying the 
existence of Maccabean Psalms. 

Respecting the collection and arrangement of the Psalms, two very 
different views have been advanced. Some think that the whole book 
was collected and compiled by one man, and that one principle 
runs throughout. The similarity of contents, the likeness of their 
tendency and destination, their internal union, regulated the existing 
arrangement. Agreeably to this internal principle of similarity and 
analogy in individual poems, the first place in the collection was 
assigned to the Psalms of David and his contemporaries, Asaph and 
his choir of singers, Heman and other Korahites, who are reckoned 
the creators and masters of the lyrical poetry in the Psalms. The 
compositions of these master-singers were then divided according to 
the prevailing usage of the two names of Deity into three books, in 
the first of which, containing only Psalms of David, Jehovah is predo- 
minant ; in the second, containing Psalms of David and his contem- 
poraries, the sons of Korah, Asaph, Solomon, and some unknown poets, 
the name Elohim is predominant. The third, containing the Psalms 
of Asaph and the Korahites, received its position partly from its mixed, 
i. e. Jehovah-Elohistic, and partly from its pure Jehovistic, cha- 
racter. Within these three books the individual Psalms are so 
arranged according to the same law of analogy, as to have a link of 
union either in their internal mutual relation to one another, in the 
similarity of the occasion on which they were composed and the 
design they were intended to serve, in their common title, in their 
agreement in ideas and words, their coincidence in certain charac- 
teristic images and expressions, or finally, in several of these par- 
ticulars together. Thus the Psalms are put together as the links of 

1 Die Psalmen erklart, u. s. w. Einleitung, p. 9. et seqq. 



On the Book of Psalms. 751 

a chain ; the anonymous Elohim-Psalms (xliii. lxvi. lxxi.) being not 
only incorporated with the second book, but also two anonymous 
Jehovistic Psalms (x. xxxiii.) being embodied in the first; while the 
Davidic Psalm lxxxvi. is inserted among the Korahite poems of the 
third book. The first and second Psalms are placed at the head of 
the collection in consequence of their common introductory designa- 
tion and their internal relation to one another. 

The remainder of the collection is similarly arranged in accordance 
with the succession of time ; so that after the Psalm of Moses (xc), 
which as the oldest stands at the head of this collection, comes a 
decade of anonymous ones reaching from Solomon to the time of the 
exile (xci. — c.) ; then a series of poems written during the exile and 
till Ezra; then the collection of pilgrim-songs (cxx. — cxxxiv.), suc- 
ceded by the last group of temple and halleluyah Psalms. In the 
three last groups are inserted those Davidic Psalms which either 
served as patterns to later poets, or by their prophetic contents 
refer to the future condition of the kingdom of God in its contest and 
victories. 

The general conclusion drawn from this uniformity of plan in the 
arrangement is, that the whole proceeded from one person, who did 
not live before the time of Nehemiah, to which the latest Psalms 
belong. It is conjectured that Ezra was this collector; since he was 
contemporary with Nehemiah. 

Such is the view elaborated by Keil on the basis of Hengstenberg's 
lucubrations. 1 It were idle to deny that it is ingenious and plausible 
in many things ; though its complexity and artificiality speak against 
its adoption. Nothing appears to us more improbable than that the 
present arrangement proceeded from one person. It cannot have 
originated with Ezra; because it is now an acknowledged thing 
among the best critics that he was not the inspired collector and re- 
dacteur of the canon ; and there is no other foundation for ascribing 
the collection of the Psalms to him than this old tradition that he 
completed the canon of the Old Testament. It is certain that the 
canon was closed later than the time of Ezra, as various books 
written after him show. 

All the phenomena lead to the conclusion that the collection was 
made gradually. It is likely that the first book was the oldest put 
together. The writer's intention seems to have been, to furnish songs 
of David exclusively. It cannot be that David himself made the 
collection, because it contains several which are not his, such as the 
14th. 2 Besides, as De Wette remarks, David would hardly have 
bestowed upon himself the honourable epithet of servant of Jehovah, 
which is annexed to his name in two of the titles, xviii. xxxvi. The 
time when the first book was made must be placed after the Babylonian 
exile, on account of the 14th Psalm, which appears to belong to the 
captivity ; or later in the opinion of others. The second book was 
subsequently added. It would seem to have been formed out of two 

1 See Keifs Einleit. § 116. and in Havernick's Einleit. p. 275. et seqq. 

2 In order to maintain the Davidic origin of this poem, Tholuck assumes most arbi- 
trarily that the seventh verse is a liturgical addition! See Uebersetzung, u. s. w. pp. 61, 62. 



752 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

or more small collections ; for Psalms xlii. — xlix. are from the sons 
of Korah, andli. — lxv. from David. If the first book was made after 
the captivity, the second must own the same origin. In it also occur 
poems which were written during or after the captivity. The third 
book also originated in smaller collections ; for the Psalms of Asaph 
stand together at the commencement of it (lxxiii. — lxxxiii.); while 
Ixxxiv. — lxxxix. are for the most part Korahite ones. Only one 
Psalm in it is attributed to David, viz. the 86th, erroneously as it 
would appear. Jahn conjectures that the collector of this third book, 
wishing to add his own collection to the preceding one and not having 
particularly in view the songs of David, subjoined to the 72nd Psalm 
the formula signifying that the Psalms of David were ended. 1 This 
is probable, since the words are intended to separate what precedes 
from what follows — to mark later additions ; like the analogous 
phrases in Job xxxi. 40. and Jer. li. 64. We do not believe, with 
Olshausen 2 , that the collector of the second and third books was one 
and the same person because in the greater part the predominant 
use of the name of Deity is the same, viz. Elohim. On the contrary, 
since Jehovah predominates from the 84th Psalm onwards, it must be 
concluded that the second and third books were made up by different 
persons. It is arbitrary to suppose, with Olshausen, that the last six 
Psalms of the third book were a later appendix by another hand. 
And it is equally arbitrary to suppose, with Ewald 3 , that the eight 
Psalms, xcii. — c, were moved out of their original place after the 
72nd, by a very old mistake. The last two books were collected and 
added in the same manner as the rest. They are mostly liturgical, 
and also of the latest age. It is likely, as in the case of the other 
books, that they were formed out of minor collections ; for in the 
fourth book xcii. — c. bear a certain likeness to one another ; and in 
the fifth book, the halleluyah-Psalms begin with the 104th, while the 
songs of degrees, cxx. — cxxxiv. stand together. The entire collec- 
tion was made considerably after the return from the captivity, and 
before the translation of Jesus Sirach, 130 b. c, when the entire 
Psalms were translated into Greek ; and even before the Chronicles 
were written. This last fact is inferred from the circumstance that a 
temple-song is placed in David's time by the writer of the Chronicles 
which is borrowed from the latest portions of the present collection. 
Even the doxology, forming the conclusion of the fourth book, is in- 
cluded in that temple-ode. (1 Chron. xvi. 7 — 36.) 

There can be little doubt that the collectors of the various books 
were guided by a religious aim. The Psalms were written and ga- 
thered at last into one whole, for public as well as private use. 

The subject before us admits of many hypotheses. And many 
such have been propounded ; as may be seen in Bertholdt and later 
critics. Whatever speculations may be indulged in respecting the 
different books composing the whole collection, it is clear to us that 
it arose gradually, out of smaller collections already existing ; for the 
unevenness and dissimilarity of the titles, the double insertion of the 

1 Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 719. 2 Die Psalmen erklart, u. s. w. Einleit. p. 31. 

3 Die Poetischen Biicher, i. pp. 193, 194. 



On the Book of Psalms. 753 

same Psalm, as in the case of the 14th and 53rd, the dispersion of poems 
proceeding from the same writer or writers throughout all the five 
books, the closing formula of the second book, viz. the prayers of 
David the son of Jesse are ended, show that one uniform plan does not 
pervade the whole ; and that it was not formed on one principle. 
There are also peculiar repetitions, such as the 70th, consisting of the 
last five verses of the 40th, which corroborate the same con- 
clusion. But while the want of order and regularity predominates ; 
there is unquestionably a certain order. Thus the greater number of 
David's Psalms, those of the sons of Korah, those of Asaph, as also 
the songs of degrees, stand together. Occasionally too, similarity of 
contents appears to have led to the juxtaposition. Still there is 
no one pervading principle of arrangement; as Hengstenberg and his 
follower Keil incorrectly argue. Sometimes a principle may be de- 
tected in a part, sometimes not; showing that the different books were 
uncritically, and to a certain extent arbitrarily, combined out of minor 
collections. 

The usage of the names Jehovah and Elohim in different parts of 
the entire collection is somewhat peculiar. In the first book, Je- 
hovah appears 272 times; Elohim (absolutely) 15 times. In the se- 
cond book Jehovah occurs 30 times; Elohim 164 times. In the third 
book, Jehovah appears 44 times; Elohim 43. In the last two books 
together, Jehovah is used 339 times; Elohim but 7. How is this 
distinction of the names of Deity to be explained ? How is it that 
the appellation Jehovah is designedly omitted in a series of Psalms ; 
its place being supplied by Elohim even where Jehovah is always 
employed elsewhere? Some, as Ewald 1 , resolve the fact into the 
subjectivity of those who collected the different parts together. They 
interchanged the names according to their own taste. This view ap- 
pears to us utterly improbable. The collectors would not have 
ventured to meddle with the text in this manner. They left it, as we 
think, untouched. Others, as De Wette 2 , resolve it into the dif- 
ferent ages of the Psalms. This is insufficient, because the writers of 
the Psalms in which Elohim prevails lived in centuries when Jehovah 
was the usual appellation. Delitzsch 3 thinks, that the origin of the 
distinction lies in imitation of the Pentateuch, where the two names 
are discriminately employed ; a hypothesis quite arbitrary and im- 
probable. On the other hand, Keil i accounts for it by design on the 
part of the writers, to meet and counteract the influence arising from 
the contracted notions of the surrounding heathen with their national 
and local deities, over the covenant people, who might be led by that 
means to think of Jehovah, the God of Israel, as a limited national 
God. This view appears to us as improbable as the rest. It is too 
artificial, attributing to the sacred writers what would scarcely have 
influenced their writing to so great an extent. We are therefore in- 
clined to resolve the fact into the peculiar liking of many poets 
for the name Elohim ; a view which Delitzsch's objections do not re« 

1 Die Poetischen Biicher, u. s. w. pp. 191, 192. 2 Einleitung, p. 467, 

3 Symbolae ad Psalmos ilhistrandos isagogicae, p. 29, 

4 Einleitung, p. 293., and in Havernick's Einleit. iii. p. 277. et seqq. 
VOL. II. 3 C 



I, 



754 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

fute. The collectors, noticing the prevailing usage of Jehovah in 
some Psalms, and of Elohim in others, were influenced by it in part 
in arranging books or particular collections. 

The Psalms are properly lyric, that is, they are songs or odes. 
This is the earliest kind of poetry among any people, being the im- 
mediate expression of the feelings as they arise, simple, spontaneous, 
unstudied. Accordingly, all the emotions of the mind are poured 
forth in these compositions. Every elevation and depression of 
the soul is expressed in them. The essential peculiarity, however, 
of the lyrical song consists in the form which is given to it by the 
musical accompaniment, or rather the beautiful rhythm and time for 
which it is adapted both to be sung and played to. 

De Wette calls the Psalter a laical anthology, because it contains 
the lyric productions of different authors at various periods, the title 
" Psalms of David" being merely a denominatio a potiori. This an- 
thology, however, contains merely the remains of the lyric poetry 
which appeared among the Hebrews. In Gen. iv. 19 — 24., Exod. 
xv., Judg. v., we have lyric specimens earlier than David's time. The 
directions of Moses immediately before his death have also the appear- 
ance of being cast in the same form. The lyric reached its culminating 
point in David, who carried this kind of poetry to its greatest perfection. 
Whether the lyric poetry of the Hebrews was exclusively devoted 
to the service of religion and to public worship, may appear at first 
sight uncertain. We believe that it was not ; especially as David's 
elegy over Saul and Jonathan is still preserved; and also the song 
at the well in Num. xxi. The Song of Solomon has also been re- 
ferred to, which belongs to common life ; and the 45th Psalm itself is 
considered by many of an entirely secular character. But whatever 
view be taken of the last two poems, it is probable that very few se- 
cular songs were composed. Almost all were of a religious nature. 
They were dictated by those emotions towards God which constitute 
alike their life and beauty. 

Those who have failed to perceive the comprehensive nature of 
lyric poetry, containing within itself, as it does, the germs of other 
species, have found in the Psalms, besides lyrical poems, ethic or 
didactic ones, such as the 119th and the alphabetical ones generally; 
elegiac poems; enigmatic, or rather as they should be termed, gnomic; 
and idyls or short pastoral poems. These species lie dormant in 
the lyric, which readily passes over into them. So also the dramatic; 
the nearest approach to which we have in the 24th Psalm. But we 
must decidedly object to the opinion of Horsley, that "the far greater 
part of the Psalms are a sort of dramatic ode, consisting of dialogues 
between persons sustaining certain characters." ' Such dialogue- 
psalms, as they are called, are for the most part the offspring of ima- 
gination. The writers have sometimes thrown their ideas into forms 
which appear to involve different speakers, merely to give animation 
and vivacity to their compositions. To suppose in any case actual 
alternate choirs, is an unnecessary refinement. 

1 Preface to Translation of Psalms, p. xiii. Theological Works, vol. iv. 



On the Book of Psalms. 755 

It is' almost superfluous to state, that all the Psalms, or even the 
majority of them, were not composed for use in the public worship. 
Some were evidently written with that design; the rest with no such 
object. 

There is a class of Psalms which bears many marks of imitation. 
Those which are plaintive in tone belong to it; for it is observable 
that they have considerable similarity in contents and scope. The 
ideas and phrases are little varied. This phenomenon some account 
for by referring such compositions to the national calamities of the 
Hebrews, by which they were suggested. But many Jews were 
thrown into the same situation at different periods. Tokens of imita- 
tion are also found in the alphabetic and halleluyah Psalms. As a 
general rule, the oldest Psalms are the freshest and most original in 
matter, form, and language. 

The age of particular Psalms and their language are not always or 
generally in the proportion to one another which might be expected. 
Purity and ease of diction characterise the later rather than the 
earlier ones. Even in ideas, some of those after the captivity, such 
as the Psalms of degrees, are equal to David's. It has been proposed 
as a rule, by De Wette *, that a Psalm is older in proportion to the 
difficulty and awkwardness of its phraseology as well as the fulness, 
freedom, and compression of its ideas; and later in proportion to the 
ease, elegance, and facility of its language, besides the perspicuity, 
and exact ai'rangement of its matter. This may be accepted with 
some modification. Accordingly, the poetical merit is often in an 
inverse proportion to the age ; some of those attributed to the sons 
of Korah and belonging to the exile, or even after it, occupying a 
high rank in sublimity, beauty, and elegance. 

In considering the Messianic character of the Psalms, there are 
two extremes which ought to be avoided. One is, that of referrino- 
them all to Christ; as though they found their consummation and 
fulfilment in his person and kingdom. The other is, that of excluding 
him from such Psalms as undoubtedly relate to his person and suffer- 
ings. Some few are directly prophetical of the Messiah. Others have 
a secondary and spiritual reference to him. A considerable number 
of Psalms belong to the latter class. Hence they bear a primary and 
secondary reference; the one to the person or experience of David, 
who was both the illustrious ancestor and a type of Messiah ; the 
the other to David's greater son, the Messiah. Or, the primary 
sense pertains to some pious sufferer, while the higher and secondary 
applies to Christ. The only clear examples of directly and ex- 
clusively Messianic Psalms are the 2nd and 110th; for which we 
have the express authority of the New Testament. In attributing 
the 2nd to Christ, we are not at all convinced by Hupfeld's argu- 
ments 2 of the incorrectness of the view in question ; nor can we ap- 
prove of his saying that David being named as the writer, in the 
Acts of the Apostles, shows nothing more than the current tradition 
of the time. We believe that the Psalm is properly Messianic ; and 

1 Commentar ueber die Psalmen, Einleitung, p. 16. 

2 Die Psalmen, vol. i. p. 16. et seqq. 

3c 2 



756 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

that it was composed by David. Examples of the second class are 
furnished by the 16th and other Psalms. In every case, it is best to 
have the sanction of the New Testament for both kinds of Messianic 
odes ; else the interpreter will run to excess. Thus some explain the 
72nd of Messiah, without necessity or warrant. In looking into the 
New Testament we find numerous passages of particular Psalms 
quoted in connection with Christ. But it must not be inferred from 
that fact, that they are predictive of him in different ways. Thus 
the eighth Psalm, 4th, 5th, and 6th verses, though applied to him in 
Heb. ii. 6, 7., is not predictive of his person. In like manner, the 
allusion in Matt. xxi. 16. to the second verse of the same, merely 
shows that the truth expressed in the words quoted was exemplified 
in the case of the children uttering hosannas in the temple to Jesus. 
The simple citation in the New Testament of a passage from a 
Psalm does not imply the Messianic character of the passage 
itself; much less of the whole Psalm in which it stands. Many cir- 
cumstances must be taken into account by him who would properly 
investigate the Messianic reference of a particular Psalm. No general 
rules can be given for ascertaining it. Dr. Noyes thinks, that "in 
regard to some of the references made to the Psalms "by Paul and 
Peter, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, it seems ne- 
cessary to suppose that they were not inspired as critics and inter- 
preters." 1 This idea appears to us unwarranted by all the phenomena 
of inspiration. The apostles were always inspired ; a fact consistent 
with the supposition that in some quotations of the Psalms we see 
their own subjectivity, or the prevalent interpretation of the Jews in 
their day, rather than absolute, infallible truth. Yet this happens 
but seldom. We do not believe that Acts iv. 25., xiii. 33. are 
examples of it; as Noyes, after De Wette and others, maintains. 
Instances, however, may be seen in the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

Bishop Horsley supposes that those Psalms which were composed 
by David himself were prophetic, because, at the close of the 
Psalmist's life, he describes himself and his sacred songs in this man- 
ner : " David the son of Jesse said, and the man who was raised up on 
Jiigh, the anointed of the God of Jacob, and the sweet psalmist of 
Israel, said, the Spirit of Jehovah spake by me, and his word was in 
my tongue." (2 Sam. xxiii. 1, 2.) " It was the word therefore of 
Jehovah's Spirit which was uttered by David's tongue. But it should 
seem the Spirit of Jehovah would not be wanted to enable a mere 
man to make complaint of his own enemies, to describe his own 
sufferings just as he felt them, and his own escapes just as they hap- 
pened. But the Spirit of Jehovah described by David's utterance 
what was known to that Spirit only, and that Spirit only could de- 
scribe. So that, if David be allowed to have had any knowledge of 
the true subject of his own compositions, it was nothing in his own 
life, but something put into his mind by the Holy Spirit of God ; 
and the misapplication of the Psalms to the literal David has done 
more mischief than the misapplication of any other parts of the 

1 Translation of the Psalms, Introduction, p. 10. 2d edition. 



On the Book of Psalms. 757 

Scriptures among those who profess the belief of the Christian re- 
ligion." l 

The reasoning in this passage appears to us radically unsound and 
fallacious. When it is affirmed that the Spirit of Jehovah spake by 
David; it is not meant that whatever David wrote was the utterance 
of that Spirit. When it is said that Jehovah's word was in David's 
tongue; it is not intended to convey the meaning that what his tongue 
always expressed was the direct suggestion of the Deity. The exten- 
sion of such language to all his compositions is quite gratuitous. The 
phraseology is general, implying no more than that David was under 
divine inspiration. Whatever was the subject of his compositions — 
himself or the Messiah — he wrote under the general superintendence of 
the Spirit. We cannot and should not separate things known or un- 
known — things he could utter with and without the Spirit; — for the 
Spirit was in him continually ; when he described his own sufferings 
as well as when his language referred to the great spiritual Deliverer 
to come. With these sentiments, we repudiate all such exposition 
as Horsley's when he says, that of the Psalms alluding to the 
life of David " there are none in which the Son of David is not 
the principal and immediate subject. David's complaints against 
his enemies are Messiah's complaints, first of the unbelieving Jews, 
then of the heathen persecutors, and of the apostate faction in later 
ages. David's afflictions are Messiah's sufferings. David's peni- 
tential supplications are Messiah's, under the "burden of the imputed 
guilt of man. David's songs of triumph and thanksgiving are Mes- 
siah's songs of triumph and thanksgiving for his victory over sin, and 
death, and hell." 2 This is mere fancy, not exposition. The right- 
minded interpreter must discard allegorisings of the kind specified. 
The references to Christ which the Psalms embody are usually inde- 
finite. They are neither precise nor explicit; showing that the 
writers had no clear or distinct ideas of the expected Messiah. 
Where there are direct prophecies of him, the case is otherwise. 
But such prophecies are rare; and some individual passages in 
Psalms which have been supposed to contain unequivocal predictions 
respecting his person or government, or both, should not be properly 
called predictions. Hence we cannot adopt the opinion of Bishop 
Home that the Psalms treat of " the advent of Messiah with its 
effects and consequences ; his incarnation, birth, life, passion, death, 
resurrection, ascension, kingdom, and priesthood." 3 In some pas- 
sages some of the particulars just enumerated are alluded to; but 
usually in terms of general and vague import. 

How admirably the Psalms are adapted to the purposes of Oevo- 
tion is shown by their use in all ages. The subjects presented in 
them to our meditation are various. They treat of the perfections of 
God, the constant providence he extends over his creation, his moral 
government, his parental character, his afflictive dispensations, the 
future Messiah, his kingdom and priesthood, and all the moods of 
the spiritual mind. The writers passed through every variety o-f 

1 Preface to Translation of the Psalms, pp. xi. xii. vol. iv. of Theological Works.. 

2 Ibid. p. ix. 3 Preface to Commentary on the Psalms. 

3 c 3 



758 Introduction to the Old Testament, 

religious frames and experiences ; so that the expression of their con- 
victions and emotions corresponds, with remarkable exactness, to 
those of the devout mind wherever it is found. The phases of the 
spiritual life appear in this treasure-house of devotion ; and therefore 
the prayers and praises of the church have been offered up in its 
language to the throne of grace from age to age. " Where," says 
Luther, " do we find a sweeter voice of joy than in the Psalms of 
thanksgiving and praise ? There you look into the heart of all the 
holy, as into a beautiful garden, as into heaven itself. What deli- 
cate, sweet, and lovely flowers are there springing up of all manner 
of beautiful, joyous thoughts towards God and his goodness. On 
the other hand, where do you find more profound, mournful, pathetic 
expressions of sorrow, than the plaintive Psalms contain? There 
again you look into the heart of all the holy ; but as into death, nay, 
as into the very pit of despair. How dark and gloomy is everything 
there, arising from all manner of melancholy apprehension of God's 
displeasure ! I hold that there has never appeared on earth, and 
never can appear, a more precious book of examples and legends of 
saints than the Psalter is. For here we find not merely what one 
or two holy men have done, but what the Head himself of all the 
holy has done, and what all the holy do still ; how they stand 
affected towards God, towards friends and enemies, how they be- 
have and sustain themselves in all dangers and sufferings. Besides, 
all manner of divine and salutary instructions and commands are 
contained therein. Hence too it comes, that the Psalter forms, as it 
were, a little book of all saints, in which every man, in whatever 
situation he may be placed, shall find Psalms and sentiments which 
apply to his own case, and are the same to him as if they were for 
his own sake alone so expressed that he could not express them him- 
self, nor find nor even wish them better than they are." l The 
Psalter must ever be the chosen companion of the pious through all 
the changes of life. 

In regard to the ethics of the Psalter, considerable diversity of 
opinion exists. According to some writers, the system of morality 
exhibited is in accordance with the purest spirit of religion; the 
duties of universal love, of forgiveness and kindness to enemies, 
of benevolence and mercy, being forcibly set forth as they are 
in the Gospel of Christ; while others think the forgiveness of 
enemies and universal charity were not so well apprehended or 
exemplified by the Jewish psalmists as by the apostles and early 
Christians. The question turns in a great degree upon the impreca- 
tions contained especially in the fifty-fifth, sixty-ninth, hundred and 
ninth, and hundred and thirty-seventh Psalms. Various methods 
have been adopted for the purpose of bringing these peculiar ex- 
pressions into accordance with the mild, forgiving, spirit of the Chris- 
tian religion. 

1. By many they are explained as predictions ; the imperative 
mood in Hebrew being often used for the future tense. But the 

1 Preface to the Psalter. 



On the Book of Psalms. 759 

imperative and future tense are not employed interchangeably. 
Each has its appropriate office. There are cases, indeed, in which 
the imperative approaches very near to the future (or imperfect) ; and 
also in which the future stands for the imperative, ex. gr., with nega- 
tive particles, and as the expression of the third person of the impe- 
rative, &c. ; but still it would be unphilosophical to say that they 
may be used interchangeably. Both come under the one class of 
voluntative, as Ewald 1 phrases it. Both are used to express condi- 
tions of the will. Speaking generally, the imperative is the highest 
ascent of the will ; its shortest and most decided expression. The 
future is a less emphatic utterance of the speaker's will. This cha- 
racteristic difference of the two is variously modified by abbreviation 
and enlargement. Nordheimer says that " the choice between the 
two modes of expression depends rather on the writer's taste than on 
any strict rule of construction : " 2 we should prefer saying, that the 
choice depends, to a great extent, on the feelings of the writer at the 
time. And this is the very point before us. The imperative, how- 
ever, cannot be properly employed in predictions. The future may 
be so used; but the imperative refuses that office. Hence the 
imperatives which occur in these imprecations can only be referred 
to the writers' feelings or desires, showing what they are. 3 

2. Another explanation is offered in the following passage : " The 
persons to whom the imprecations refer were inveterate adversaries, 
plotting against the life of the psalmist, and maliciously intent upon 
effecting his ruin. To pray to be rescued from their wicked devices 
was clearly lawful ; and, considering their numbers and persevering 
malignity, his escape might seem utterly impracticable without their 
entire overthrow or extirpation; a prayer for their destruction, 
therefore, was equivalent to a prayer for his own preservation and 
deliverance. Besides, they were for the most part not only personal 
enemies, but hostile to the people of Israel, rebels to their heavenly 
King, and violators of His commands. To desire the punishment of 
such characters arose, it may be fairly presumed, not from personal 
vindictive feelings, but from a regard to religion and hatred of 
iniquity ; and was in fact tantamount to desiring the Almighty to 
vindicate His glory by inflicting the chastisements which they de- 
served, and which He has denounced against the proud contemners 

of His laws Imprecations, therefore, made with the limitations, 

and originating in the motives just mentioned, so far from being 
liable to the charge of maliciousness and revenge, are in accordance 
with the purest spirit of religion, and with the exercise of the most 
extensive charity." 4 

This account of the imprecations is sufficiently laboured and arti- 
ficial, proceeding upon a view of the speakers' motives and their 
enemies which is purely conjectural. Certain feelings are put into 
the hearts of the psalmists, and those against whom they pray ; 

1 Atisfuhrliches Lehrbuek der hebraischen Sprache, p. 426. 
- Hebrew Grammar, vol. ii. p. 193. 

3 Comp. Roediger's Gesenius, pp. 239. 243, 244. 

4 Holdeu's Christian Expositor, vol. i. p. 418. et seqq. 

3 c 4 



760 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion. It appears to us entirely 
insufficient to explain the imprecations in question. That it does 
not reach the whole case may be seen from the 137th Psalm 9th 
verse : " Happy shall he be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones 
against the stones." In the 109th Psalm, 6th and following verses, 
we read, " Set thou a wicked man over him : and let Satan stand 
at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned : 
and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and let another 
take his office. Let his children be fatherless and his wife a widow. 
Let his children be continually vagabonds and beg : let them 
seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extor- 
tioner catch all that he hath ; and let the stranger spoil his labour. 
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him : neither let there be 
any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; 
and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let 
the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the Lord ; and let 
not the sin of his mother be blotted out." Here we remark, that 
a real individual is meant; not an ideal person as the type and 
representative of the whole class of the speaker's oppressors. This is 
admitted even by Alexander. Some one person is singled out as 
the subject of imprecation. Not only is the prayer directed against 
himself, but his children also; his posterity generally. Were they 
the malignant and persevering enemies of the psalmist, whose entire 
overthrow was a necessary condition of his escape ? Even the iniquity 
of the fathers of the individual is introduced, with the view of its 
being remembered against the descendant : and it is requested that 
the sin of his mother should not be blotted out. What have these to 
do with the adversary's own malignity; or why should they be 
brought up against him? We know that part of the Psalm in 
question is applied in the New Testament to the treachery of Judas 
and his miserable fate; but that is not the primary or principal 
sense. The sufferer prays in the first instance and directly for the 
punishment of enemies and of one in particular against whom he 
launches forth the direct imprecations, wishing that the consequences 
of transgression might be extended not merely to the children, but 
to the parents. In like manner, it might easily be shown that the 
explanation is insufficient in the case of the other Psalms ; such as the 
sixty-ninth. Our Lord is not the exclusive, or even immediate sub- 
ject of this last ; as is manifest from the confession of sin in the fifth 
verse. Neither is the subject of it an ideal person, representing the 
whole class of righteous sufferers of whom Christ was one, and the 
representative. The Psalm refers in the first place to certain per- 
sons who had an actual existence when it was written; for on this 
supposition alone is it intelligible. In the twenty-seventh verse the 
Psalmist prays, " Add iniquity unto their iniquity, and let them not 
come into thy righteousness." Here is a prayer that sin may be 
followed by the natural effects of sin; and that the persons should 
not participate in the divine pardon. Suppose that they were per- 
severing and malignant enemies of the speaker, was it necessary 
for his escape from their devices that they should not be pardoned ? 



On the Book of Psalms. 761 

Did a regard to religion and hatred of iniquity prompt this petition ? 
Certainly not. We know it is often said, that the enemies 
against whom the psalmists pray were the enemies of God himself 
and rebels to his authority ; but this does not help the explanation. 
God's enemies will be cut off. But is it consistent with the purest 
morality to wish that they may not be pardoned ; that they may be 
'* blotted out of the book of the living, and not be written with the 
righteous," i. e. effaced from the divine decree, as Alexander inter- 
prets it ? "What has man to do with the divine decrees ? It is also 
said that the psalmist (David) stands in these and other instances 
as the type and representative of Messiah ; but even granting this 
assumption, and allowing him to be the writer of all the imprecatory 
Psalms (which we do not), it does not follow that everything he 
says and does should be right and proper. All his actions and 
words are not stamped with infallible authority, simply because he 
was a type of Christ in his official capacity. 

3. A somewhat different explanation is furnished by Prof. Edwards, 
the substance of which is thus given by a writer in Kitto's Cyclo- 
paedia, who adopts it. " Only a morbid benevolence, a mistaken 
philanthropy, takes offence at these Psalms ; for in reality they are 
not opposed to the spirit of the gospel, or to that love of enemies 
which Christ enjoined. Resentment against evil-doers is so far from 
being sinful, that we find it exemplified in the meek and spotless 
Redeemer himself. (Mark iii. 5.) If the emotion and its utterance 
were essentially sinful (1 Cor. xvi. 22.), how could Paul wish the 
enemy of Christ to be accursed (avdOs/xa); or say of his own enemy, 
Alexander the coppersmith, e the Lord reward him according to his 
works' (2 Tim. iv. 14.) ; and especially, how could the spirits of the 
just in heaven call on God for vengeance ? (Rev. vi. 10.)" 1 

The statements here advanced are derived from Hengstenberg, and 
appear to us entirely incorrect. In Mark iii. 5. we read of Jesus, 
" And when he had looked around about on them with anger, being 
grieved for the hardness of their hearts," &c. Here anger and grief 
are attributed to the Saviour. But are these feelings similar to such 
as prompted the words, " As he loved cursing, so let it come unto 
him ; as he delighted not in blessing, so let it be far from him. As 
he clothed himself with cursing like as with his garment, so let it 
come into his bowels like water, and like oil into his bones. Let it 
be unto him as the garment which covereth him, and for a girdle 
wherewith he is girded continually" (Psalm cix. 17 — 19.)? They 
are not. The cases bear no analogy. Resentment against evil- 
doers is wholly different from malediction and imprecation. The 
Saviour's holy mind was entirely separated from the latter ; as we 
see by the prayer he taught his disciples, and by his whole conduct. 
Granting the explanation of 1 Cor. xvi. 22. which is assumed, and 
the genuineness of the optative reading in 2 Tim. iv. 14., we do not 
identify " the spirit of the gospel, or the love of enemies which 
Christ enjoined," with occasional utterances of any one Christian, 

1 See the original article in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1844, p. 97. et seqq. 



762 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

whether he be an apostle or not. The individuality of inspired 
persons is not wholly absorbed by their inspiration. But, indeed, 
there is little or no vindictiveness in the expressions of Paul com- 
pared with those to which we have referred. They are of another 
kind. The highly poetical and figurative language in Rev. vi. 10. 
should not be brought into juxtaposition with the imprecations 
before us. The Apocalyptist merely intended to set forth the idea that 
the desert of the persecutors of the saints — their guilt before God — • 
is very great. It would almost seem as if the happiness of the mar- 
tyrs' souls were incomplete till they see their desire on their enemies. 
But the mode of expression is mere symbol. The writer, accordingly, 
represents the slain as crying for vengeance for the purpose of setting 
forth the enormity of the guilt incurred by their destroyers. The 
contrast heightens the picture. How different this is from the case of 
such persons as the psalmists, every one sees. The language is 
peculiar and unique. Nothing appears to us more injurious to the 
cause of Christianity than the attempt to find a sanction in it to 
revenge. " Vengeance is mine ; I will repay, saith the Lord." And 
it is wrong to have recourse to the highly-wrought passage in 
Rev. vi. 10. for the purpose of justifying vindictive feelings. The 
plain reader of the Psalms will see that the imprecations to which 
we are referring are the ebullitions of natural and unsanctified feel- 
ing which Judaism itself was meant to repress; but which Chris- 
tianity is far better fitted to subdue, and does in reality subdue to the 
extent it is received into the heart. Vindictiveness of the kind 
specified is abhorrent to the genius of the Redeemer's religion, 
whose essence consists in the golden maxim, " Do unto others as 
you would wish them to do unto you." Thus the explanation in 
question is untenable because dishonouring to the teachings of the 
Saviour and his apostles. It finds an analogy where there is none. 
Hengstenberg also adduces in the list of these analogies, the woe upon 
Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum (Matt. xi. 20, &c.) ; the woes 
pronounced upon the Pharisees (Matt, xxiii.) ; the words of Peter to 
Simon Magus, " thy money perish with thee" (Acts viii. 20.) ; and 
Paul's exclamation to the high priest in Acts xxiii. 3., " God will 
smite thee, thou whited wall." It is easy, however, to see that these 
are not proper analogies. They are not prayers for vengeance. Nor 
are they even in the form of a wish. They are predictions in the 
mouth of the Saviour and the apostles. 

We need not allude to other modes of explaining the language in 
these imprecatory Psalms in a milder and less obnoxious sense than 
it seems to bear. Every one that we have seen offered appears to 
us insufficient and unsatisfactory. The following considerations 
should be taken into account by the expositor. 

1. The prayers in question are expressed in the language of 
poetry. Hence some of the ideas and expressions probably arose 
from the desire of poetic effect. They belong to the impassioned 
diction of poetry, and originated in the effort to body forth its vehe- 
ment conceptions rhetorically ; not to vindictive feelings calmly 
entertained or deliberately uttered. 



On the Book of Psalms. 763 

2. Some of these prayers were composed by David in a state of 
war. At that time prayer for the destruction of enemies was equi- 
valent to prayer for preservation and success. What is harsh, 
therefore, is incidental to a state of warfare. We do not say that 
this fact justifies the use of such expressions now. It does not 
warrant their employment by private Christians with respect to 
personal enemies. Neither should it be applied to the case of Chris- 
tian ministers praying for success for the arms of their country, 
which is tantamount to prayer for the destruction of the enemy. It 
has nothing to do with the Christian dispensation; but should be 
judged entirely by the character of the old economy, to which it 
belongs. The Christian economy stands apart from all such effusions 
in prayer. What was allowable in the Old, may not be allowable in 
the New dispensation. Hence the prayers in question do not justify 
Christian ministers praying for confusion to their enemies. Neither 
do they sanction the custom of thanking God on national festivals, 
that He enabled our ancestors to conquer their enemies. \ After 
every extenuating circumstance has been duly weighed, we be- 
lieve that the precepts and spirit of Christ repudiate these impre- 
cations against enemies. Nor is it strange that persons whose con- 
duct was not always right should have occasionally uttered language 
of corresponding character. Under peculiar circumstances of exas- 
peration and base ingratitude, is it not conceivable that holy men 
should sometimes express personal feelings inconsistent with their 
prevailing disposition and with the spirit of true religion ? " If now," 
says Tholuck, " the question be proposed, whether we are neces- 
sarily led to adopt the conclusion that the unholy fire of personal 
anger never and in no case mingled itself with the fire of the 
psalmists, in itself holy, we dare not assert this even of the holy 
apostles. Whether, in an excited discourse, the wrath be such as is 
not right before God, or such as that with which even Christ kindled, 
may be commonly perceived from the nature of it, viz. when satis- 
faction in the idea of daring even to be an instrument of the divine 
retribution is visible ; or when special kinds of retribution are 
prayed for with evident satisfaction ; or when it is perceptible that 
the representation of them is connected with delight on the part of 
the speaker, &c. In Psalms cix. and lix. particularly, many expres- 
sions have a passionate character. In like manner cxlix. 7, 8., 
cxxxvii. 8,9., lviii. 11., xli. 11., may have arisen from a similar feel- 
ing. About others, individual feeling will decide differently." 2 In 
opposition to this, Hengstenberg asserts that the position which our 
Lord and his apostles assign to the Psalms refutes the idea of 
the unholy fire of personal irritation mingling with the holy fire of 
the psalmists. They are regarded as a portion of the word of God ; 
and it is precisely the most severe of the so-called vindictive Psalms 
which are applied to Christ, and considered as spoken by him, and 
are therefore pronounced worthy of him. (Psal. xli. lxix. cix.) 

1 See Noyes's Translation of the Psalms, Introduction, p. 14. second edit. 

2 Uebersetzung und Auslegung der Psalmen, pp. lxiii. briv. 



764 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Our Lord and his apostles regarded the book of Psalms as a 
portion of the Scriptures in which the word of God undoubtedly is. 
But they did not say, or lead us to infer, that all the Psalms through- 
out are the word of God. Thus Hengstenberg has confounded two 
different things. Again, it conveys a very erroneous idea to affirm 
that the vindictive Psalms are considered as spoken by Christ, and there- 
fore pronounced worthy of him. 1 Let us examine these statements. 

In the 41st Psalm the words, "Yea, mine own familiar friend, in 
whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel 
against me," are quoted in the New Testament (John xiii. 18.), and 
applied by our Lord to himself and Judas. This does not prove that 
the succeeding words of the Psalm, " But thou, O Lord, be merciful 
unto me, and raise me up, that I may requite them," properly apply 
to Christ. Besides, the entire composition refers primarily and 
principally to a righteous sufferer. Some one is depicted in whom 
the whole class of like-minded sufferers find a representative. To 
that class the Messiah belongs. He is included in it as the most 
illustrious member. That the Psalm has no chief or exclusive 
reference to him is manifest by the confession of sin in the fifth verse. 
The language is generic, and applies to the Messiah only in part. 
To affirm that the language " raised me up that I may requite them " 
is his; is to calumniate his character as set forth in the New Testa- 
ment. 

Again, in the 69th Psalm the language, " For the zeal of thine 
house hath eaten me up ; and the reproaches of them that reproached 
thee are fallen upon me " (verse 9.), are referred to Christ in John ii. 
17.; " They that hate me without a cause are more than the hairs of 
mine head " (verse 4.), to the same, in John xv. 25. ; " They gave me 
also gall for my meat ; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to 
drink" (verse 21.), to Christ also, in Johnxix. 29. : " Let their habi- 
tation be desolate ; and let none dwell in their tents " (verse 25.), to 
the same, in Acts i. 20. All this does not prove that the im- 
precations in verses 22 — 28. were uttered by the Messiah, for it 
does not follow that because one part of a Psalm is applied to Christ 
in the New Testament, the whole belongs to him. The subject of 
the Psalm is a righteous sufferer living, as it would appear from the 
35th and 36th verses, in the time of the Babylonish captivity. The 
Messiah is neither the immediate nor the exclusive reference ; as is 
plain from the confession of foolishness and sin in the fifth verse. It 
is applied to the Messiah as one of the class of righteous sufferers : 
whence however it does not follow that every trait in the Psalm 
belongs to him* In fact none belongs to him except what is expressly 
stated to do so in the New Testament. It it not affirmed in Acts i. 
20. that Christ uttered the wish respecting Judas contained in the 
25th verse of the Psalm ; nor would it have been consistent with his 
disposition. 

Again, the 8th verse of the 109th Psalm is quoted by Peter as 
written in the book of Psalms, and applied to the case of Judas 

1 Hengstcnberg's Commentary, translated, vol. iii. p. lxxiii. 



On the Book of Psalms. 765 

Iscariot. (Acts i. 20.) But it is not meant that the words thus cited 
were intended as a prediction of Judas. They are not a prophecy in 
any sense: and all that the quotation implies is that the words suit 
the case of the traitor. They are accommodated by the apostle to 
him. There is not the shadow of proof that the Saviour speaks in the 
Psalm. It is almost blasphemy to assert that of him. We do not 
think, moreover, that David was the writer of it. These remarks will 
enable the reader to perceive that the assertion of Hengstenberg, 
" the so-called vindictive Psalms are considered as spoken by Christ, 
and are therefore pronounced worthy of him," is baseless. Christ in no 
instance utters the words of the three Psalms in question. He is not 
set forth as the speaker directly and immediately. He is not the 
subject of them. Some of their expressions found their highest adapta- 
tion in the relations of his personal history. At least, they are applied 
to him as one of the class of pious sufferers. But this is a mere 
secondary and incidental reference, extending no farther than is ex- 
pressly affirmed. 

Hengstenberg also asserts " that in the Psalms we have before us 
not the aimless and inconsiderate expression of subjective feelings, but 
they were from the first destined for use in the sanctuary ; and the 
sacred authors come forth under the full consciousness of being inter- 
preters of the spiritual feelings of the community, organs of God for 
the ennobling of their feelings. They give back what in the holiest 
and purest hours of their life had been given to them." 

All this is mere assumption. Where is the evidence that the 
psalmists come forth under the full consciousness of being organs of 
God ? Does he who wrote thus, " Preserve my soul ; for I am 
holy " (Psal. lxxxvi. 2); or the writer of, " The Lord rewarded me 
according to my righteousness; according to the cleanness of my 
hands hath he recompensed me: for I have kept the ways of the 
Lord, and have not wickedly departed from my God : for all his 
judgments were before me, and I did not put away his statutes from 
me : I was also upright before him, and I kept myself from mine 
iniquity. Therefore hath the Lord recompensed me according to 
my righteousness, according to the cleanness of my hands in his eye- 
sight " (Psal. xviii. 20 — 24.) ; does either of these writers stand forth 
in the entire consciousness of being an organ of God for the enno- 
bling of the feelings of the community ? We believe not. And it 
is incorrect to say that all the Psalms were originally destined for use 
in the sanctuary. That there were private collections out of which 
the five books arose, shows an opposite opinion in those who were 
better able to judge of the point than Hengstenberg. 

The system of morality which allowed of these maledictions was 
imperfect. This is in keeping with the entire character of the Jewish 
system, which was confessedly imperfect; being designed to operate on 
a low state of moral and spiritual culture. It was necessarily adapted 
to the sensuous condition. The expressions already quoted indicate 
a temper of mind different from that which the gentle spirit of Chris- 
tianity inculcates. These Jewish psalmists had not learned the for- 
giveness of enemies in the way afterwards taught and exemplified by 



766 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Him for whose teachings their law was but a schoolmaster. Jesus 
taught his followers to forgive as they hoped to be forgiven ; a 
lesson not exemplified in these imprecations. Hence these writers 
knew universal love and forgiveness of injuries very imperfectly. 
But it may be asked, was an unmerciful and revengeful senti- 
ment ever suggested by the Holy Spirit? Certainly not. In- 
spiration does not necessarily and always imply suggestion by the 
Holy Spirit. It does not exclude individuality, or suppress the exer- 
cise of the human faculties ; and therefore an unmerciful sentiment 
may find entrance into a canonical work.* Inspiration admits of 
degrees ; and does not usually reach the extent of absolute infallibility. 
Admitting of degrees, it necessarily partakes of imperfection. 

If these remarks be correct, the view given by Hengstenberg of 
the Old and New Testament teaching respecting the spirit of love 
is erroneous. This writer argues that the spirit of placability 
was as prevalent and powerful under the Old as it is now 
under the New Testament, from the emphatic declarations of the law 
of God against revenge (Lev. xix. 18.; Exod. xxiii. 4, 5.); because 
the strongest and most numerous passages against revenge are to be 
found in the Old ; and because Paul borrows the words of the Old in 
Rom.xii. 19,20. Healso refers to thefollowing: Prov.xxv. 21.,xx. 22., 
xxiv, 17, 18. 29. ; Job. xxxi. On the other side we refer to Psah 
xviii. 37 — 43., liv. 5., xcii. 11., xciv. 2., cxxxvii. 8.; Jer. xi. 20., 
xv. 15., xx. 12., 1. 15. ; Lam. i. 21, 22., hi. 64. We admit that as 
far as the promulgation of an express laxo under the Old Testament 
coming from God himself is concerned; so far the declarations of the 
ancient are as clear as those of the modern economy ; but the very 
nature of Judaism, which was local and limited, led the Israelites to 
entertain feelings towards other peoples that were alien to the 
spirit of Christianity. The strict laws against the seven nations 
inhabiting Judrea had an indirect tendency to make the Jews hate all 
their enemies. They thought themselves authorised to regard all who 
were not within the pale of their church as enemies. Because it was 
enjoined upon them " Thou shalt love thy neighbour" (Lev. xix. 18.) 
which meant a fellow Jew, they drew from it the opposite, Thou shalt 
hate thine enemy. With the heathen they were commanded to have 
no intercourse. Hence the narrow prejudices, the haughty sentiments, 
the hostility, they were prone to foster against all such as did not 
belong to their favoured nation. It will be seen above that the 
passages are not so numerous which speak against revenge in the Old 
as in the New Testament. Besides, they relate to the intercourse of 
Jew with Jew, for the most part ; while the passages of the gospel 
are characterised by the most extensive benevolence towards all 
nations and peoples. Heathen nations are not included in the one ; 
while the other includes all. It is true that the heathens are not 
specially excluded. They are not mentioned, because the Jews were 
kept separate from them. The morality of the Old Testament, as 

* See De Wette's admirable remarks in his ueber die erbauliche Erklaerung der 
Psalmen, p. 1 1. et seqq., and Bleek, ueber die Stellung der Apokryphen, reprinted from the 
Studien und Kritiken, pp. 46, 47. 



On the Book of Psalms. 767 

far as it proceeded directly from God in the way of law, and as far as 
it extended, was as pure as that of the New Testament, but it did not 
reach so far because of the particularism of the Jewish religion. The 
nature of that religion was unfavourable to a universal and ex- 
pansive love to all mankind, especially to heathen enemies. 

There is no doubt that God tolerated revenge in certain cases under 
the Old Testament, to avoid greater evils, as " an eye for an eye, a 
tooth for a tooth," &c. (Exod. xxi. 24.) The relations of a man who 
had been killed might take revenge on the murderer. (Num. xxxv. 
16 — 18.) But these are not allowed under the New Testament. 
They are absolutely forbidden. And in the entire compass of the 
Jewish Scriptures we do not find a command like this, " Love your 
enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, 
and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you." 
(Matt. v. 44.) 

Since these remarks were written the essay of Riggenbach x 
has come to hand, in which he treats of the love of neighbour with 
special reference to the relation between the Old and New Testa- 
ments. We cannot see, however, that he has added anything to the 
subject. In one instance at least, he has ventured upon an un- 
tenable assertion, viz. in Psal. cxxxvii. 9., where by the word ren- 
dered little ones he understands young, petulant boys ; a sense not at all 
justified by usage, as may be seen in Gesenius. 

The sentiments we have now expressed are confirmed by the au- 
thority of Dr. Durell, whose critical abilities were of no ordinary kind. 
He writes : " The common opinion is, that these imprecations are pro- 
phetic denunciations of God's judgments upon impenitent sinners. 
This in some cases may be true ; but surely it cannot be so in all those 
parts where they are announced by the imperative ; where the author 
imprecates, not against God's enemies, not against the enemies of 
the state, but against his own enemies. The most probable account of 
this matter in my humble opinion is this, that God Almighty (though 
in a particular sense the God of Abraham and his offspring) did not 
interpose by his grace, or act upon the mind of his peculiar people, 
not even of their prophets, in an extraordinary manner, except where 
He vouchsafed to suggest some future event, or any other circum- 
stance that might be for the public benefit of mankind. In all other 
respect (I apprehend) they were left to the full exercise of their free 
will, without control of the divine impulse. Now God had abun- 
dantly provided, in that code of moral and ceremonial institutes which 
He had given his people for their law, that the poor, the fatherless, the 
widow, and stranger should be particularly regarded ; whence they 
ought to have learnt to be merciful as their Father in heaven is merci- 
ful ; and it must be confessed that we sometimes find such behaviour 
and sentiments in the Jews with respect to their enemies as may be 
deemed truly Christian. See Psal. xxxv. 13, 14. &c. But, in that 
very system of laws, it was also for wise reasons ordained, that they 
should have no intercourse with the seven nations of the Canaanites ; 

1 Studien und Kritiken for 1856, h. i. p. 117. et seqq. 



768 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

but should absolutely exterminate them ; whence they unwarrantably 
drew this inference, that they ought to love their neighbours ; but 
hate their enemies, as our Lord declares, Matt. v. 43. From 
these devoted nations they extended the precept to the rest of man- 
kind, that they were not within the pale of their church ; nay, some- 
times to their own domestic enemies, those of their own blood and 
communion, with whom they were at variance. Hence, therefore, the 
horrid picture which is drawn of that nation by the Greek and 
Roman authors ; from whom I forbear to bring any instances, as they 
are well known ; and so numerous, that they might fill a volume. 

" How far it may be proper to continue the reading of these Psalms 
in the daily service of our church, I leave to the consideration of the 
legislature to determine. A Christian of erudition may consider 
those imprecations only as the natural sentiments of Jews, which the 
benign religion he professes abhors and condemns ; but what are the 
illiterate to do, who know not where to draw the line between the 
law and the Gospel ? They hear both read, one after the other ; and 
I fear too often think them both of equal obligation ; and even take 
shelter under Scripture to cover their curses. Though I am con- 
scious I here tread upon slippery ground, I will take leave to hint, 
that, notwithstanding the high antiquity that sanctifies as it were this 
practice, it would, in the opinion of a number of wise and good men, 
be more for the credit of the Christian church to omit a few of those 
Psalms, and to substitute some parts of the Gospel in their stead." l 

The right of the book of Psalms to a place in the canon has never 
been disputed. These compositions are often quoted by our Lord and 
his apostles, as well as referred to the Holy Spirit. The following 
is a list of passages thus cited in the New Testament : — 

Psal. ii. 1, 2. - - - Acts iv. 25, 26. 

ii. 7. Acts xiii. 33.; Heb. i. 5., v. 5. 

v. 9. - - - Rom. iii. 13. 

viii. 2. - - - Matt. xxi. 16. 

viii. 4—6. - - Heb. ii. 6—8. 

viii. 6. - - 1 Cor. xv. 27. 

x. 7. - - - Rom. iii. 14. 

xiv. 1—3. - Rom. iii. 10 — 12. 

xvi. 8—11. - - Acts ii. 25—28. 31. 

xvi. 10. - - Acts xiii. 35. 

xviii. 49. - - - Rom. xv. 9. 

xix. 4. - - Rom. x. 18. 

xxii. 1 . - - Matt, xxvii. 46. ; Mark xv. 34. 

xxii. 8. - - - Matt, xxvii. 43. 

xxii. 18. - - - Matt, xxvii. 35. ; Mark xv. 24. ; Luke xxiii. 

34. ; John xix. 24. 

xxii. 22. - - - Heb. iL 12. 

xxiv. 1. - - - 1 Cor. x. 26. 

xxxi. 5. - - - Luke xxiii. 46. 

xxxii. 1, 2. - - Rom. iv. 7, 8. 

xxxiv. 12—16. 1 Pet. iii. 10—12. 

xxxvi. 1. - - - Rom. iii. 18. 

xl. 6—8. -.- Heb. x. 5—7. 



1 Critical Remarks on the Books of Job, Proverbs, Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles, 
by D. Durell, D. D., Principal of Hertford College, and Prebend of Canterbury. Oxford, 
1772. 4to. pp. 179, 180. 



On the Book of Proverbs. 



769 



John xiii. 18.; Acts i. 16. 

Rom. viii. 36. 

Heb. i. 8, 9. 

Ephes. iv. 7, 8. 

Eom. xt. 3. 

John xix. 28, 29.; Matt, xxvii. 34. 48.; Mark 

xv. 36.; Luke xxiii. 36. 
Rom. xi. 9, 10. 
Acts i. 20. 
John vi. 31. 

ohn x. 34. 
Matt. iv. 6.; Luke iv. 10, 11. 

1 Cor. iii. 20. 

Heb. iii. 7—11., iv. 3. 5—7. 
Heb. i. 6. 
Heb. i. 10—12. 
Heb. i. 7. 
Matt. xxii. 44.; Mark xii. 36.; Luke xx. 42. ; 

Acts ii. 34, 35.; Heb. i. 13. 
Heb. v. 6. 

2 Cor. ix. 9. 
2 Cor. iv. 13. 
Heb. xiii. 6. 
Matt. xxi. 42.; Luke xx. 17.; Acts iv. 11.; 

1 Peter ii. 7. 
Matt. xxi. 9.; Mark xi. 9.; John xii. 13. 
Luke i. 69. ; Acts ii. 30. 
Rom. iii. 13. 

In the Septuagint version, as also the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic 
translations, another Psalm, in addition to the 150th, occurs. As it 
was never in the Hebrew, it is manifestly apocryphal, though an- 
cient. The following English translation of it is from Brenton's Sep- 
tuagint. 

" This Psalm is a genuine one of David, though supernumerary, 
composed ichen he fought in single combat with Goliath. 

" I was small among my brethren, and youngest in my father's 
house : I tended my father's sheep. 2 My hands formed a musical in- 
strument, and my fingers tuned a psaltery. 3 And who shall tell my 
Lord? The Lord himself, he himself hears. 4 He sent forth his 
angel, and took me from my father's sheep, and he anointed me with 
the oil of his anointing. 5 My brothers were handsome and tall ; but 
the Lord did not take pleasure in them. 6 I went forth to meet the 
Philistine ; and he cursed me by his idols. 7 But I drew his own 
sword, and beheaded him, and removed reproach from the children of 
Israel." 



Psal. xii. 9. 

xliv. 22. - 

xlv. 6, 7. - 

lxviii. 18. - 
Ixix. 9. 

Ixix. 21. - 

lxix. 22, 23. 
Ixix. 25., cix. 
Ixxviii. 24. 
lxxxii. 6. - 
xci. 11, 12. 
xciv. 11. - 
xcv. 7—11. 
xcvii. 7. - 
cii. 25—27. 
civ. 4. 
ex. 1. 

ex. 4. 
cxii. 9. 
cxvi. 10. - 
cxviii. 6. - 
cxviii. 22, 23. 

cxviii. 25, 26. 
exxxii. 11. 17. 
cxl. 3. 



CHAP. XIV. 

THE BOOK OF PKOVEEBS. 



The Proverbs of Solomon embody the result of Hebrew reflective- 
ness on the divine revelation given in the Mosaic law, and attested in 
the particular providence by which the chosen people were led. 
The doctrines of revealed truth were received into the consciousness 

VOL. II. 3 D 



770 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

of the nation, and thus became motives to action. They formed 
part of the spiritual life, developing themselves in the form of 
ethical maxims. Concentrated as Hebrew wisdom, they appear 
sometimes in short, unconnected sentences and gnomes ; some- 
times as connected conversations covering the entire field of re- 
ligious apprehension and practical piety. In every case, they are 
opposed to the folly of sin, which is represented as leading to de- 
struction and death. The book of Proverbs presents piety in a 
practical and comprehensive aspect. Its aphorisms and sayings 
embrace the duties of piety towards God, of justice and benevolence 
towards man, of temperance, continence, and moderation; as also 
precepts pertaining to the education of the young, and affecting the 
conduct of rulers and subjects. It forms in short a code of ethics 
far superior to similar collections among heathen nations however 
enlightened, because it is based upon those divine communications 
which came from heaven to the Jews, distinguishing them from all 
other peoples. It is not the product of man's independent reflection 
on the ways and works of Grod, or on the relations of men to one 
another and to their Creator ; but the concentrated result of the 
Hebrew mind of a certain age digesting and developing those prin- 
ciples which the Mosaic law exhibits more or less fully — either 
plainly or in germ. It is the code of Old Testament morality. 

The form of the sententious sayings of which the book consists is 
various. Sometimes the sentence consists of a position and its 
opposite; sometimes of proverbs and comparisons; sometimes of in- 
structive images and profound riddles. Their form thus corresponds 
to their nature, which is almost boundless. 

The Hebrew word ?K>lp, whose plural is employed as a general 
title to the book, properly signifies similitude or comparison. Hence 
it is used of parables (Ezek. xvii. 2., xxiv. 3). By a natural transi- 
tion it is applied to pithy sentences or apophthegms, because they pre- 
sent for the most part two things or two ideas compared with one 
another. The meaning of the word was gradually extended so as to 
embrace any apophthegm. Nearly synonymous with b&D is ny vP, 
which means a dark saying, one needing interpretation ; not an 
ironical one, as Ewald holds; nor an elegant, splendid saying, as De- 
litzsch and Keil assert. (Prov. i. 6.) So too HTn, a knotty saying or 
riddle, one whose sense is enigmatical or difficult of solution. 
(Prov. i. 6.) . ■ » ■ 

Although nb'ptp wP, proverbs of Solomon, or the abbreviated ™, 
proverbs, be the common title of the book, yet it is styled in Baba 
Bathra HD^n "igD, book of wisdom. The fathers of the Christian 
church usually call it aocfrla, xcisdom, and tj Travapsros aocpia, all- 
virtuous wisdom, titles which they also apply to the proverbs of Jesus 
Sirach, and the apocryphal book of Wisdom. Such appellations 
seem to have originated with the Egyptian Jews, among whom 
the book of Wisdom was composed. 

The book may be divided into seven parts separated from one an- 
other by different titles ; viz.— 



On the Book oj Proverbs. 771 

I. Ch. i.— ix. II. Ch. x.— xxii. 16. III. Ch. xxii. 17— xxiv. 
IV. Ch. xxv.— xxix. V. Ch. xxx. VI. Ch. xxxi. 1—9. VII. 
Ch. xxxi. 10—31. 

The first part contains a connected description and commendation 
of wisdom as the highest good to be sought. The second and 
third are of a miscellaneous character. Three sections may be dis- 
tinguished in the first, each consisting of three chapters, i. 8 — iii. 
'65., iv. — vi., vii. — ix. Prefixed is a general title relating to the 
whole book, and a preface, i. 1 — 7. In the first subdivision, the 
father admonishes his son to yield up his heart willingly to the 
paternal admonition, first negatively, warned by the seductive allure- 
ments of sin (10 — 19.), then -positively (20 — 33.). This is followed 
by the blessed and beneficial consequences of a willing and earnest 
striving after wisdom, inasmuch as it leads to the knowledge and fear 
of God and to righteousness of life, preserving its possessor from the 
evil way of perverse men and the death-bringing path of the adul- 
terous woman. The third chapter contains single precepts, in follow- 
ing which wisdom manifests itself in action. The second section 
contains a more copious unfolding of the announcement in i. 8, 9. in 
three paragraphs. In the third section (vii. — ix.) folly and wisdom are 
introduced as thinking, living forms, and depicted according to their 
characteristic nature. 

The second part has for its commencement the new inscription, 
The Proverbs of Solomon. It is distinguished by a collection of 
individual sayings setting forth wisdom and the fear of God on the 
. one hand ; on the other, folly and sin in their manifold qualities and 
manifestations, as well as in relation to their different consequences. 
These sentences are mostly connected very loosely with one another, 
(x. 1 — xxii. 16.) In the 374 verses of this section, every verse is 
completed and rounded off in two members, with the solitary excep- 
tion of xix. 7. Each verse is intelligible by itself, the sense being 
finished within it. 

The third part contains a number of apophthegms which are re- 
presented as the words of the wise. These are better connected 
with one another. It has a copious introduction (xxii. 17 — 21.) 
followed by the words of the wise, and contains a sort of appendix 
(xxiv. 23 — 34.), having a number of individual sayings generally 
in the form of commands and prohibitions, which is also represented 
as the production of ivise men (xxiv. 23). Here the sense ge- 
nerally runs through two or three verses together ; and many 
verses consist of three members. 1 

The fourth part (xxv. — xxix.) contains, according to the title, 
Proverbs of Solomon which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah co-pied 
out. It is a new collection of sayings, chiefly characterised by com- 
parison and antithesis. Here the association of ideas is frequently 
marked by the recurrence of a leading word which serves as the con- 
necting link of gnomes, ex. gr. D'3?Pj Kings, xxv. 1, 2. 

1 See Keil in Havernick's Einleit. iii. p. 388. et seqq. 
3 d 2 



772 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

The fifth part contains the words of Agur, setting forth true 
wisdom and its realisation in life, in a very artificial dress, (xxx.) 

The sixth part exhibits cei'tain doctrines for a king, which his 
mother taught king Lemuel, (xxxi. 1 — 9.) 

The seventh part is an encomium on the virtuous woman, in the 
form of an alphabetical poem. (xxxi. 10 — 31.) 

The scope of the book is plain. It is to instruct men in true 
wisdom and understanding, the essence of which is a right appre- 
hension of the divine will, and a sincere fear of the Lord. All the 
precepts and apophthegms bear upon this, teaching men in all the cir- 
cumstances of life to act with reference to their Creator and Pre- 
server whose providence extends to all their actions. 

With respect to the authorship of the book, we must be guided in 
some degree by the inscriptions, as well as the actual nature of the 
contents. The title to the second part, viz. x. 1 — xxii. 16. is plain, 
the Proverbs of Solomon. And we see no good reason for doubting 
the accuracy of it. There is no person known to us from Scripture 
to whom these proverbs could be ascribed with equal reason. In the 
first book of Kings it is related that Solomon uttered three thousand 
proverbs (1 Kings iv. 32.), of which many are probably preserved in 
the book. Their number and variety are not so great as to tran- 
scend the gifts and wisdom of David's son. It is not necessary to 
suppose that they are the productions of a whole nation, either for 
the reason that they are too numerous for one person ; or because 
many of them relate to private and rural life ; Solomon not being 
sufficiently familiar with the one, and not participating in the 
other. Hence we are not moved by any such considerations of 
De Wette to call in question the authenticity of x. — xxii. 16. At 
the same time, it is evident from internal phenomena that Solomon 
did not put this part in the form in which it now appears. Proverbs 
occur in various places in a similar form, as xiv. 12 re-appears in 
xvi 25. , xxi. 9. and 19. coincide ; x. l a is in xv. 20 a ; x. 2 b in xi. 4 b ; 
x. 15 a in xviii. ll a ; xv. 33 a in xviii. 12 b : xi. 21 a and xvi. 5 b , 
xiv. 31 a and xvii. 5% xix. 12 a and xx. 2 a are analogous. These 
repetitions can hardly have proceeded directly from the author him- 
self. Bertheau adduces in favour of different authors the differences 
which are observable in the structure of the proverbs, and the rela- 
tion of the two members of a verse to one another l ; but we cannot 
attach weight to this consideration. It is unreasonable to expect 
uniformity in respect to the structure and members of verses in 
which apophthegms lie, from a highly gifted man like Solomon, or 
indeed from any writer of genius. But it is calculated to excite 
suspicion against oneness of authorship when we find the same ideas 
recurring in many proverbial sayings. One author would scarcely 
have repeated one theme in so many ways differing but slightly 
from one another. In consequence of such repetitions both of ideas, 
and of the forms in which they are expressed, it is difficult to believe 
that Solomon wrote this part as it is. It is most probable that 
we owe the chapters in question to the industry of a compiler. And 

1 In Exeget. Handbuch, part 7. Einleit. p. 24. 



On the Book of Proverhs. 773 

it is likely that he used different sources, oral or written. Bertheau 
supposes that such sources did not always sufficiently attest the 
Solomonic authorship of the proverbs which the compiler took from 
them, especially as he wrote down many out of his own memory. 
In his endeavour to put together none but Solomonic sayings he was 
in danger of admitting into the collection those of other men. 
And this happened accordingly. 1 Stuart's explanation is different, 
but no better. " Many, perhaps most of these proverbs, were 
such as common sense and long experience had for substance 
already suggested to the minds of intelligent men. They were 
floating among the common people, and subjected thereby to more 
or less disfigurement or change. Solomon's mind, under divine 
influence, could easily recognise such of these proverbs as were true 
and useful ; and, acknowledging them to be so, he transferred them 
into tcritten language, so that they might be rendered permanent in 
their true and proper sense, and be thus guarded against alterations. 
These common maxims of life, thus sanctioned by him when in 
such a state, became authoritative and general truths. Of course, 
we may properly assign the authorship of them to him ; for he 
selected them, adopted them, and published them as consonant with 
his own views. They were only of traditional currency before 
this ; but now they became a part of Scripture under the sanction 
of Solomon. " 2 Here too much importance is attached to Solomon 
selecting and writing proverbs ; whereas it is merely said that he spake 
three thousand proverbs. There is no evidence that he wrote his 
own proverbs; much less that he selected and wrote down others. 
Besides, proper authorship implies more than adopting and transfer- 
ring into writing what already existed. TVe see no better mode of 
accounting for the title of the second part than that the compiler 
used both written and oral sources, endeavouring to take from both 
what was thought to belong to Solomon. And the greater number do 
belong to the wise monarch. Some however do not; nor is it 
likely that the compiler supposed all to be his. Along with Solo- 
mon's he took several others which were in part imitations. And 
he prefixed the title Proverbs of Solomon because the greater part of 
the contents unquestionably proceeded from him. A potiori fit 
denominatio is a principle which justifies the title to us; and justified 
it in the eyes of him who compiled x. — xxii. 16. 

In relation to ch. i. — ix. there is some reason to hesitate about 
the Solomonic authorship. The general title and preface (i. 1 — 1.\ 
obviously refer to the whole book as it now is. It cannot be shown 
that what immediately follows is designated as belonging to Solo- 
mon, else why should there be another title in x. 1. ? Does not this 
title imply a distinction between what follows and precedes, as if the 
latter did not proceed from Solomon ? This reasoning is plausible 
but precarious, because i. 8 — ix. 18. may have been in existence 
before what is now prefixed to it and separately circulated with 
its own title. Still less reliance can be placed on the allegation of 

1 In Exeget. Handbuch, part 7. Einleit. p. 24. 

2 See Commentary on the Book of Proverbs, Introduction, p. 34. 

3 D 3 



774 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

De Wette respecting i. — ix. that its didactic and admonitory tone, 
together with the strict injunction of chastity, agree better with the 
character of a teacher of youth, a prophet, or a priest, than a king 
like Solomon l ; as if a keen observer cannot be found in any situa- 
tion of life. 

An attentive examination of ch. i. 8 — ix. 18. will lead to the 
conclusion that there is in it a collection of admonitions, proceeding 
from different persons, all having one object, viz. to encourage the 
young man to strive after the attainment of wisdom. For, — 

1. Single paragraphs are separated from those in their vicinity, 
not merely by their contents, but by a peculiar external form. Thus 
some paragraphs are completed in the course of ten verses, as i. 10 
—19.; iii. 1 — 10., 11—20.; iv. 10-19. ; viii. 12—21., 22—31. If 
the whole proceeded from one and the same author, it would be 
remarkable that he should adopt this strict law only here and there ; 
especially as nothing in the contents could have occasioned departure 
from it in some cases, not in others. 

2. The difference in sentence -making and the whole grouping 
of the language is so great as to favour the assumption of different 
authors. Thus the greater part of the second chapter consists of one 
long sentence wearily drawn through nearly twenty verses ; whereas 
in other places where the same subject is treated of, the diction is 
easy, flowing, and appropriate, as in vii. 5 — 27. 

3. In vi. 1 — 19., there is an interruption of the connection. 
In the fifth chapter an admonition to attend to the doctrine of the 
speaker, follows the warning against intercourse with a strange 
woman ; after which we naturally expect a continuation of the sayings 
just commenced; but, on the contrary, in vi. 1 — 19., warnings and 
advices are given relating to different situations in life, comprehended 
in four paragraphs, after which, in the 20th verse, we find a new ex- 
hortation to hearken. 

4. Numerous repetitions occur in i. 8 — ix. 18. This is parti- 
cularly the case with relation to two leading topics, the strange 
woman, and wisdom. The former is described no less than five dif- 
ferent times; while the latter is referred to more or less fully eight 
times. Surely the same writer would scarcely repeat himself so 
ofl en within so brief a compass. 

This is confirmed by the fact that parts i. and ii. proceeded from 
different authors, For, — 

1. In i. 8 — ix. 18., almost all the verses consist of synonymous 
■parallels; whereas in the second part, the antithetic and synthetic 
parallelism prevails. This fact favours diversity of authorship in the 
two parts. 

2. The poetical character of i. 8 — ix. 18. is of a much higher 
order than the other parts of the book. The second part even 
approaches the style of prose, while the first possesses that grandeur 
and elevation which distinguish true poetry. 

3. Again, the use of Elohim separates i. 8 — ix. 18. from x. 1 
— xxii. 16. In the second chapter this appellation occurs twice 

1 Einleitung, § 281- p. 418 



On the Book of Proverbs. 775 

ii. 5. 17.; whereas Jehovah is elsewhere employed, except in Agur's 
appendix, xxx. 5. 9. Thus the writer of the second chapter seems 
to have been an Elohist. 

4. Many paragraphs in i. 8 — ix. 18. are headed with the 
address my son, whereas this appears but once in the second part, 
xix. 27. 1 

Considering these discrepancies in style, manner, and contents, 
not only between the contents of the first and second parts, but of 
the chapters composing the first part alone, the probability is that 
the sayings of various authors are put together in the collection i. 
8^-ix. 18., and that Solomon himself was not the writer. When 
Ewald says that the piece is an original whole, well-connected, and 
proceeding as it were out of one gush, he overlooks the internal 
evidence. 2 As little discernment is shown by a writer in Kitto's 
Cyclopaedia, who affirms " that it is a continuous discourse, written 
in the highest style of poetry, adorned with apt and beautiful illus- 
trations, and with various and striking figures." It is possible that 
Solomon may have compiled the first part — possible even that he may 
have written some portions and compiled the rest, as Stuart conjec- 
tures ; but it is not very probable. At what time the different authors 
lived cannot be determined. They could scarcely have been all con- 
temporary. Ewald 3 has pointed out some resemblances between 
images and expressions in the first part of our book and Job. Thus 
Wisdom is spoken of in a similar strain in Job xxviii. as in the first, 
third, and eighth chapters of Proverbs. Yet it would be hazardous to 
assert that the writer or writers made use of the book of Job, or even 
that some sections originated at the same period as that remarkable 
woi'k. Ewald has tried to show that the first part of the book was 
written much later than the second, three centuries at least, arguing 
from the diversity of language, form or manner, and external rela- 
tions of life. But we connot perceive the validity of his arguments, 
which have all been answered by Bertheau, Keil, and Stuart. The 
difference of language between them is not very great ; and nothing 
to justify a wide separation in point of time. All that can safely 
be asserted is, that the first part was put together in its present form 
much later than Solomon ; that it proceeded from various writers, 
among whom it is likely that Solomon himself was one ; and that 
they all did not live long after the king himself. We do not think 
that Solomon himself acted in part as the compiler of the first 
division. 

The portion xxii. 17 — xxiv. did not proceed from Solomon, be- 
cause there are two notices or titles winch attribute it to various 
authors. In xxii. 17. the disciple is instructed to hear the words 
of the icise ; and in xxiv. 23. it is said, that these sayings were written 
by the wise. Hence we infer that the collection proceeded from dif- 
ferent authors. And this is confirmed by internal evidence. 

(1.) The structure of the verses is different from that of the pre- 

1 See Bertheau, Einleitung in die Spruche Salomo's, p. xxi. et segq. 

2 Die Dichter, u. s. w. vol. iv. p. 39. 3 Ibid. p. 38. 

3 D 4 



778 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

ceding part. It is by no means so regular. In the former, the 
verses consisting of two members usually contain seven words, rarely 
eight. But here verses of six, seven, or eight words are intermingled 
with others of eleven, and even of fourteen and eighteen words. The 
even proportion also of the members is often interrupted, so that no 
trace of parallelism appears. 

(2.) Very seldom is a sentence completed in one verse. Most fre- 
quently it occupies two verses, often three, and even so many as five 
(xxiv. 30—34.). 

(3.) Here, as in the first part, the address my son appears, xxiii. 
19. 26., xxiv. 13., and the admonition is frequently addressed to the 
hearer in the second person. But in the preceding part my son 
occurs but once. 

(4.) Though proverbs of similar import are sometimes brought 
together, so as to form a rounded circle of admonitions, yet they are 
not generally so arranged. 1 

It is impossible to tell when these proverbs were written. Nothing 
in the language leads to a later origin than x. — xxii. 16. Bertheau 
thinks that they proceeded for the most part from one poet, because 
there is a peculiarity of diction which appears but seldom in the 
other parts, viz. the rendering a subject or object emphatic by repeti- 
tion of the pronoun, ex. gr. xxii. 19. 28., xxiii. 14, 15. 19, 20. 28., 
xxiv. 6. 27. 32. The compiler seems himself to have put xxii. 17 — 
21. It has been observed that this portion bears an analogy to i. 8 
— ix. in object and contents ; and therefore it may have proceeded 
from the same author, or the same compiler. But the first cannot be 
held ; and it is improbable that Solomon himself compiled either i. 8 
■ — ix. or the present portion. We do not believe with Stuart that 
the king added the present to the preceding parts, having found it 
already made and approving of it. 2 It was compiled after Solomon. 

With regard to xxv. — xxix., it is affirmed at the commencement 
of the division, that it contains the proverbs of Solomon which the 
men of Hezekiah copied out. On comparing it with x. — xxii. 16., we 
find a great number of pi'overbs repeated, with slight deviations. 
Hence we infer that the compilers of both parts used the same 
sources. Comp. xxv. 24. with xxi. 9.; xxvi. 13. with xxii. 13.; 
xxvi. 15. with xix. 24. ; xxvi. 22. with xviii. 8.; xxvii. 13. with xx. 
16. ; xxvii. 15. with xix. 13. ; xxvii. 21. with xvii. 3. : xxviii. 6. 
with xix. 1. ; xxviii. 19. with xii. 11. ; xxix. 22. with xv. 18. &c. Only 
in one instance do we find the repetition of a proverb here which is 
in the third part; comp. xxviii. 21. with xxiv. 23. 

The appendix in chap. xxx. contains the words of Agur. Who 
Agur was, we are unable to tell. According to the English version 
Agur the son of Jakeh delivered the precepts to Ithiel and Ucal; 
and many conjectures have been made about these proper names. 
Agur can scarcely be a symbolic name for Solomon ; as Jerome and 
several Rabbins thought. J^or is it at all likely that the names Ithiel 
and Ucal, With-me-God, I am strong, were formed by the poet him- 

1 See Bertheau, pp. xxiv. xxv. 

2 Commentary on the Proverbs, Introduction, p. 42, 



On the Book of Proverbs. Ill 

self to designate a class of conceited free-thinkers, as Keil supposes. 1 
As little verisimilitude attaches to the notion of Lemuel being a fic- 
titious name, To God, one devoted to God, as Eichhorn and Ewald 
have conjectured. But we should point the Hebrew differently, as 
Hitzig 2 and Bertheau recommend, whence arises the translation 
" the son of her who is obeyed in Massa. Thus spake the man, I have 
1 oiled for God, I have toiled for God and vanished away." Keil tries 
to disprove and refute this version, without effect. It is impossible to 
tell whether these words of Agur are extracts from a larger work of his ; 
or whether they were found in their present state by him who ap- 
pended them to the preceding parts. After the words of Agur in 
chapter xxx., come those of Lemuel (xxxi. 1 — 9.) which his mother 
is said to have taught him. It has been conjectured, with great pro- 
bability, that the mother of Lemuel was the queen of Massa, mentioned 
in the preceding inscription ; consequently Agur and Lemuel were 
brothers. That both appendices were drawn from the same source, 
is likely from the contents as well as the titles. Agur and Lemuel 
did not live before Hezekiah. Probably they lived soon after. The 
fine poem in xxxi. 10 — 31. is drawn from a different source, as its 
contents, style, and character are quite dissimilar. It is in praise of 
the virtuous woman, and is alphabetical. Hence it belongs to a com- 
paratively late period of Hebrew literature; such artificial produc- 
tions not appearing till the seventh century. It may therefore be 
placed in that century. 

Taking our stand-point in the time of Hezekiah, when the fourth 
division was made, and considering that neither Agur nor Lemuel 
lived long after, and the alphabetical poem could not have been 
earlier than the seventh century, we are brought to the general con- 
clusion that the book in its present form first appeared either at the 
close of the seventh, or more probably the beginning of the sixth. The 
compiler of the whole ; or, if such be not assumed, the appender of 
the last part, lived more than three centuries after Solomon. The 
manner in which the book originated is not easily discovered. We 
may either conceive of it as gradually increasing from small begin- 
nings to its present compass by receiving new additions at different 
times ; or we may recognise one compiler, who put it into the form 
it now has. Of the two hypotheses the former is the more probable. 
In the introductory part, i. 1 — 1 ., the writer says that he intends to 
give not merely the proverbs of Solomon, but the icords of the wise 
and their dark sayings. Hence he meant to take into his book xxii. 
17 — xxiv. But ch. i. 8 — ix. forms an appropriate introduction to 
the whole. It was designed to occupy the commencing part and no 
other, for there only is it in place. And there is no reason for sup- 
posing that the writer of the first seven verses did not also compile 
and put into their present shape i. 8 — ix. and x. — xxii. 16. The 
latter is expressly promised ; the former also as we think, because both 
contain either the sayings of the wise king, or the maxims of others 
similar to his. Hence the author of i. 1—7. meant to take into his 

1 See Havernick's Einleitung, iii. p. 412. 

2 See Zeller's Jahrbiicher for 1844, p. 283. 



778 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

book i. 8 — xxiv. All were composed by him as they stand. The 
fourth collection (xxv. — xxix.) also, was probably added by the 
same person. Nor is there anything in the fifth, sixth, and seventh 
parts, which is against their having been incorporated into the 
whole book by the compiler to whom we owe the other parts. 
Thus the entire work was written, arranged, compiled, and com- 
pleted as it now is, by one and the same person ; of whom we know 
nothing more than that he lived after the time of Hezekiah. 

If then the third division contain nothing but the words of the 
wise; and the three appendixes loosely added to the body of the 
book, containing the words of Agur, Lemuel, and the encomium on 
a virtuous wife, are the words of the wise also ; if in like manner 
i. 8 — ix. does not belong to Solomon, or at least in part only; why 
does the final redactor from whom the title and preface proceed 
(i, 1 — 6.) call the whole the proverbs of Solomon ? A potiorifit deno- 
mination The greater part of the contents is his. Solomon was the 
real author of the main portion. We cannot assent to the opinion of 
Bertheau, that the final compiler wished merely to designate Solomon 
as the author of the manner and purport of the book, not of the pro- 
verbs contained in it. 

The canonical authority of the book of Proverbs is attested by 
numerous quotations in the New Testament ; as, 



Prov. i. 16. 


- 


. 


Romans iii. 10. 15. 




iii. 7. 


- 


- 


Romans xii. 16. 




iii. 11, 12. 


- 




Heb. xii. 5, 6. 




iii. 34. - 


- 


- 


James iv. 6. 




x. 12. 


- 




1 Peter iv. 8. 




xi. 31. - 


- 


. 


1 Peter iv. 18. 




xvii. 13. - 


- 


- 


Romans xii. 17.; 1 Thess. v. 15. 


; 1 Peter iii 


xvii. 27. - 


. 


- 


James i. 19. 




xx. 9. 


. 


- 


1 John i. 8. 




xx. 20. - 


- 


- 


Matt. xv. 4.; Mark vii. 10. 




xx. 22. - 


- 


- 


Romans xii. 17. 




xxv. 21, 22. 


. 


. 


Romans xii. 20. 




xxvi. 11. 


. 


- 


2 Peter ii. 22. 




xxvii. 1. - 


- 


- 


James iv. 13, 14. 





As the Proverbs are written in poetry, they partake of the poetic pa- 
rallelism of members. And a careful attention to such parallelism will 
remove obscurity from some of them. Especially do they abound in 
antithetic parallels which give point, force, and elegance to the senti- 
ments inculcated. Opposition of ideas and diction is peculiarly 
favourable to the emphatic enunciation of wise sayings. The ethics 
of the book are such as were suited to the Jewish economy, and what 
might have been looked for in it. They are pure and right as far 
as they extend. But they do not reach the height of New Testa- 
ment morality. They are not so spiritual. The motives presented 
are not of the most elevated sort ; because they arise out of prudence 
rather than love. Disinterestedness does not characterise them as it 
does the motives presented by Christianity. The encouragements 
\ offered to a life of virtue are prudential ; being founded on an earthly 
retribution. Indeed the writers appear to have had no conceptions of 
a future state of rewards and punishments. Hence they could only 
look to the service of God in this world. " Higher and more disin- 



On the Booh of Proverbs. 779 

terested and affectionate motives are necessary for the formation of a 
perfect character, a character which shall command our highest esteem 
and love." 1 

In the eighth chapter occurs a description of Wisdom personified. 
As it is universally admitted that the first part (verses 1 — 11.) contains 
an elegant personification of wisdom in the abstract, it may be pre- 
sumed that the same is continued throughout. But many suppose 
that from the twelfth to the thirtieth verse, Wisdom is the divine 
Logos, the second Person in the Holy Trinity. The writer, it is 
thought, passes from a consideration of the excellence of wisdom, to 
the contemplation of the eternal, hypostatic Word. We confess 
ourselves disinclined to this view on the ground of simple exegesis. 
It appears far-fetched and unnatural. We may glance at the 
arguments adduced in its favour by Holden. 

Several circumstances in the passage ascribed to wisdom cannot 
belong to an attribute. 

1. An attribute cannot be the beginning, origin, or efficient cause 
of God's operation in the work of creative power. 

2. It cannot be born. 

3. It cannot be by or near the Deity. 

4. It cannot rejoice in his sight. 

5. It cannot be called the fabricator or framer of the world. 
Some particulars can only be affirmed of the second Person in the 

Trinity, as, 

6. Wisdom is declared to have been produced by an eternal gene- 
ration, (verses 22. 24, 25.) 

7. It is declared to have been anointed, set apart, and ordained to 
certain offices, and invested with power and dignity from everlasting, 
(verse 23.) 

8. It is declared to have been the efficient cause or creator of the 
world, (verse 22. 30.) 2 

With reference to these we observe, that if wisdom be figuratively 
treated as a personage, she must have had a beginning. Hence she 
is said to be the firstling or first creation of God's formative power, 
because all the works of God were performed by her aid. She 
existed before any of them. Again, as she is styled the firstling or 
first creation, her birth may be equally predicated. Both express the 
one idea of rise or origin. Wisdom as a personage may be said to be 
by or with the Deity, with propriety. In like manner it is consistent 
with the poetical imagery to say that she rejoices before him, or in his 
immediate presence. It is also an unfounded assertion, that she 
cannot be called the fabricator of the world. The artificer is a most 
pertinent epithet. 

When it is affirmed that the writer of Proverbs describes wisdom 
as produced by an eternal generation, we demur to the correctness of 
the statement. A proper translation of the words does not justify it. 

1 See Noyes's Translation of the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles, p. xiv. 

2 See Holden's Attempt towards an improved Translation of the Proverbs of Solomon, 
p. 189. 



780 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

The idea of wisdom being inducted into her office by anointing is both 
poetical and suitable. Wisdom is not declared to be the efficient cause 
or creator of the world in verses 22. 30., as is alleged by the ex- 
positor. 

There is a remarkable inconsistency and confusion in Holden's 
observations. He admits the personification in the first part of 
the chapter, but denies it in the second. Discarding the figu- 
rative character of wisdom in the latter, he contends that it refers 
to a person, though according to that very personification which he 
rejects, it is treated as an august and dignified personage. He refuses 
to admit one kind of personage, who is sufficient to satisfy all the 
requirements of the place, to make room for another personage who 
cannot be higher than an attribute of Deity because an attribute of 
Deity is but Deity himself in one aspect of his nature. 

Various expressions in the paragraph appear to us inconsistent 
with the interpretation which refers wisdom to the second Person of 
the Trinity. 

The 22nd verse says, Jehovah created me. The best judges admit 
that the verb !"IJ£ means here to create; not possess as the English 
Bible has it. So it is translated by Ewald, Hitzig, Gesenius, and 
the LXX., Targum, Peshito. Hence, according to the true sense, if 
the passage refer to the Son, he must be a created being, as the Arians 
hold. Holden interprets, " possessed me by right of paternity and 
generation. The Father possessed the Son, had, or, as it were, 
acquired him by an eternal generation." l What this language means 
we are unable to fathom. It is certainly based on an improper version 
of the verb. Again, in the 24th verse we read of wisdom being born, 
which is equivalent to created in the 22nd verse. This does not agree 
with the idea of the second Person in the Trinity, who is described 
here, if described at all, in his divine nature alone. But Holden has a 
method of applying the expression to the Son. " I conclude it is 
applied to him in the sense of bringing forth, expressive of his divine 
and eternal generation" 2 — an explanation unintelligible to us. The 
place has no relation to the doctrine of the Trinity. There is in it 
nothing more than a bold personification, in a highly poetical style, of 
the antiquity, excellence, and dignity of wisdom. It is allegorical ; 
and presents an allegorical personage to the reader. 

The entire character of the description, which goes into poetical 
details for the sake of embellishment, agrees best with the personifi- 
cation of wisdom. If the Son of God be literally described, it is 
difficult to discover the suitableness or congruity of the whole. And 
we leave the advocates of the ultra-orthodox view to vindicate the 
description, understood in their way, from the charge of bitheism. 
" When wisdom," says Holden, " is represented as rejoicing in his 
sight, does it not naturally lead us to think of a distinct person ? " 3 
But " a distinct person " violates the divine unity. It is to make two 
Gods instead of one. We allow of a distinction in the divine nature ; 
but not of distinct persons, one rejoicing in the presence of the other, 

1 Attempt towards an improved Translation of the Proverbs of Solomon, p. 162. 

2 Ibid. p. 172. 3 Attempt, p. &c. 186. 



On the Booh of Ecclesiastes. 781 

from eternity. On the whole, the advocates of the Deity of Christ 
would do well to omit the present passage in proving that doctrine ; for 
it only serves to weaken their cause. Every one who is a correct judge 
of Hebrew diction must see that it furnishes precarious support. 

Having these sentiments respecting the eighth chapter of Proverbs, 
we cannot but object to the language of Holden in proclaiming, "nor 
do I hesitate to pronounce the eighth chapter of Proverbs an in- 
dubitable attestation to the Divinity and Eternal Filiation of the Son 
of God." » 



CHAP. XV. 

THE BOOK OF ECCLESIASTES. 



The title of this book is derived from the Septuagint version 
£Ktc\r)<nacnris, signifying a preacher, or one who harangues a con- 
gregation. In Hebrew it is called n?.0p, which is translated preacher 
in the English version. The title or inscription with which it com- 
mences is, " The words of Koheleth the son of David, king of Je- 
rusalem." Various interpretations of the word have been proposed 
which it is unnecessary to examine. Some think that it is equivalent 
to avvaOpoKTTijs, a collector; but this is contradicted by the contents 
of the book as well as by the usage of the verb ?Dj5, which means to 
collect persons not things. Others think that it denotes an academy 
or assembly of philosophers. Others again, as Ewald and Hitzig, 
look upon the word as meaning wisdom itself, preaching wisdom; 
Solomon being looked upon by posterity as the incarnation of such 
wisdom. In this manner the feminine termination is accounted for, 
as also the construction of the word both with the masculine and 
the feminine. The view appears to be the correct one, agreeing sub- 
stantially with the Septuagint version. There is little doubt that 
Solomon is meant by the title, who is introduced as speaking in the 
book. 

The contents are comprehended in four discourses. 

I. After proposing the general theme in the second and third 
verses that all is vanity, Koheleth shows the vanity of theoretical 
wisdom applied to the investigation of things ; and then of practical 
wisdom directed to the enjoyment of life, arriving at the result that 
man by his efforts cannot obtain abiding good. (i. ii.) 

II. The second discourse begins with a description of the absolute 
dependence of man on a higher, immutable providence, succeeded by 
an answer to the inquiry after the summum honum, that there is no 
higher good for man than to enjoy himself; but that such good 
cannot easily be attained amid the many disappointments which are 
observable on earth. Under these circumstances, however, a man 
should strive after happiness through the fear of God and a con- 
scientious fulfilment of duty, trusting in the providence of the Most 

Preliminary Dissertation, page lviii. 



782 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

High, and setting a proper value on earthly possessions by means of 
contentedness with the share bestowed by God, and cheerful enjoy- 
ment of the benefits received, (iii. 1 — v. 19.) 

III. In the third discourse, the writer sets forth the vanity of 
striving after riches, develops the true practical wisdom of life, and 
shows how it is to be gained, notwithstanding all the incongruities 
of earthly life. (vi. — viii. 15.) 

IV. In the fourth discourse, these incongruities are more particu- 
larly examined, maxims being laid down at the same time for the true 
enjoyment of life; after which the whole is summed up in the enunci- 
ation of the same sentiment which stands at the beginning, viz. that 
solid, unchanging happiness is not to be found in earthly things. 

Each of these four discourses may be divided into three sections, 
thus: i. 2—12., i. 12— ii. 19., ii. 20—26 ; these belong to the first part, 
iii. 1 — 22., iv. 1 — 16., iv. 17 — v. 19.; these belong to the second 
discourse, vi. 1 — 12., vii. 1 — 22., vii. 23 — viii. 15 ; these are in the 
third discourse, viii. 16 — ix. 16., ix. 17 — x. 20., xi. 1 — xii. 8.; these 
belong to the fourth part. Each one of these subdivisions Vaihinger 1 
endeavours to reduce to strophes and half-strophes ; but with great 
artificiality and little success. 

The theme of the book is the vanity of all earthly things and efforts 
as propounded in the first and second verses : " Vanity of vanities ; 
all is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour which he 
taketh under the sun ? " This is repeated at the close. " Vanity 
of vanities, saith the preacher, all is vanity." (xii. 8.) The same 
fundamental idea is treated of in each of the four discourses from a 
new point of view which had been prepared in the preceding one. 
It is developed with progressive clearness, till the solution comes 
forth at the end. The writer carries on a kind of philosophical dis- 
cussion. His work seems to be the last exhibition of the struggle be- 
tween the old Hebrew view of the Avorld and its affairs, and the 
newer, higher view of life created by the reflection of the best minds 
in the nation under divine influence. In each discourse a difficulty 
or objection arising out of the last is taken up and solved, till, in the 
concluding one, the full solution of the problem is given, viz., that 
God will bring every thing into judgment hereafter. A future state 
of retribution clears up the mystery and dissipates all scepticism 
respecting the course of the present world. The first discourse is 
pervaded by melancholy and doubt. It is filled with the language of 
complaint and dissatisfaction. Since the course of earthly things 
is unalterably fixed, rendering all efforts to obtain happiness by the 
acquisition of wisdom and the pursuit of pleasure unsatisfactory; it 
would appear that the object of earthly existence is the present enjoy- 
ment of the good things within reach. Yet man cannot procure this 
at his own pleasure ; it comes from God. This last circumstance 
forms an objection, which is considered and resolved in the second 
discourse. It is true that the cheerful, undisturbed enjoyment of life 
comes from the hand of God, and it is vanity to suppose that man 
though possessing wisdom can procure it by his own efforts ; yet God, 

1 In the Studien und Kritiken for 1848, p. 442. et seqq. 



On the Book of Ecclesiastes. 783 

who lias connected everything with time and circumstance, disposes of 
events rightly and well, this very limitation to man's effort being in- 
tended for the purpose of teaching him to fear God. But here a new 
knot appears. It is the lot of many men not to enjoy the good things 
of life which they have acquired. This idea, which is stated subordi- 
nately in v. 12 — 16., becomes the leading idea of the third discourse. 
Though the enjoyment of the possessions acquired through the favour 
of God is often thwarted, man should endeavour to attain to the true 
and contented experience of life by cheerfully using the earthly 
things given him, exercising true wisdom and avoiding the folly 
which is so common. Yet, at the end of this third section the mys- 
tery appears, " there are righteous to whom it happens according to 
the doing of the wicked ; and there are wicked to whom it happens 
according to the doing of the righteous." Accordingly, the fourth 
and last discourse shows that, since there is an overruling providence 
whose ways we cannot fathom, nothing remains but to direct the view 
to a rightous state of retribution hereafter, applying wisdom and the 
fear of God to the satisfying of the spirit. It is remarkable to see 
how the doubts and difficulties resulting from a contemplation of the 
present life are kept before the mind of the reader till the conclu- 
sion. The condition after death appears quite dark to the writer, 
judging from iii. 21., ix. 5. 10., because the time had not arrived for 
the full solution of the problem to be given, in the doctrine of im- 
mortality. The conclusion of the work lies in xii. 8 — 14. The 8th 
verse contains the theme, viz. that all earthly occupations and circum- 
stances are vanity; while the 13th and 14th verses give the general 
scope of the whole, which is, to teach the fear of God in relation to 
a future judgment. Thus the true enjoyment of the good things of 
life is recommended in connection with and in subservience to the fear 
of God, whose judgment will hereafter clear up all seeming irregu- 
larities, and reward the works of men as they deserve. 

We cannot but think that the book is pervaded by a deep ethical 
and religious philosophy. While every thing earthly is unsparingly 
exposed in all its vanity, and the pursuits of men are shown to 
be disappointing and delusive, all is not vain which lies within their 
reach. The fear of God and cheerful acquiescence in his arrange- 
ments are strongly inculcated. Gloominess and disappointment 
would hang over the relations of life did not God purpose to bring 
every thing hereafter into judgment. 

The plan and scope of the book are very obscure, and therefore have 
been frequently misapprehended. Vaihinger appears to have been the 
first who clearly exhibited them. 1 He has been followed by Keil, in 
Havernick's Introduction to the Old Testament. At the same time, he 
has needlessly entangled himself with the investigation of strophes and 
half-strophes, after the example of Koester. It is conceded that the 
form of the work is poetic, rhetorical, dialectic. The connection of 
ideas internally, as well as the outward form, show careful arrange- 
ment on the part of the writer. Amid apparent freedom and discur- 

1 In the Studien und Kritiken for 1848. 



784 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

siveness, he never loses sight of his theme, but pursues it much 
more closely and consecutively than a superficial reader may perceive. 
The internal connection never ceases; nor does a new subject com- 
mence here and there. On the contrary the one theme is pursued 
throughout. 

From misunderstanding the book many unjust charges and suspi- 
cions against it have arisen. The rabbinical writers relate *, and their 
account is confirmed by Jerome 2 , that the Jews were disinclined to 
receive the book into the canon, in consequence of some heresies and 
contradictions which they supposed to exist in it. But these doubts 
were suppressed in consequence of the expressions it contains towards 
the close relative to the fear of God and the observance of his laws. 
Within the old Christian church similar doubts were not unknown. 
Thus Theodore of Mopsuestia denied the divine inspiration of the 
book. It is not too much to say, that all such charges or suspicions 
are based on mere misunderstanding. The principal accusations have 
been urged by Knobel 3 and De Wette 4 , which are — 

1. The view of life presented in the book inclines to Epicureanism. 
It recommends the comforts and enjoyments of life. But this is con- 
nected with the fear of God and active piety. Nowhere is sensu- 
ality commended ; rather such enjoyment of the good things of the 
world as is accompanied with a contented, submissive, and thankful 
spirit. When we look at the end of the book, we see clearly that the 
writer is far from enjoining an Epicurean pleasure ; for pleasure is 
there limited by a consideration of the judgment of God, and the 
consequences of man's doings. The accusation in question is based on 
mere isolated passages. 

2. It has also been said, that a certain fatalism appears in the 
writer's sentiments respecting the government of the world. Every 
thing in providence is eternally unchangeable. This gives rise to a 
moral scepticism, because man is unable with all his efforts to accom- 
plish what he aims at. Here again individual passages only have 
been looked at, to the neglect of others. All the fatalism that is in- 
culcated is in harmony with the tenor of the Bible, which teaches 
that man can do nothing of himself. The sovereignty of God does 
not destroy responsibility ; and moral retribution is clearly set forth 
at the end of the book. This is inconsistent with the fact of scepticism. 

3. Some passages, like iii. 21., have been thought to throw doubt 
on immortality. That is true, because it was the writer's design to leave 
the point doubtful in the present stage of the discussion. The time had 
not then come for bringing out the full solution of the problem. The 
writer meant to depict the progress of a perplexed state of mind ; and 
therefore he employs this language. The discussion was still ad- 
vancing. At the close he asserts his belief in the doctrine of immor- 
tality ; here a like affirmation would have disturbed the unity and 

1 See Pesikta Rabbati, f. 33. c. 1. Midrash Coheleth, f. 311. c. 1. Vayikra Eabba, 
sect. 28. f. 161. c. 2. See also a curious passage explanatory or palliative of the Talmudic 
sentences, in It. Isaac Aramah, given by Preston in his work on Ecclesiastes, Preliminary 
Discourse, p. 13. et seqq. 

2 Comment, in Ecclesiast. xii. 13. 

3 Commentar ueber das Buch Koheleth, 1836. 4 Einleit. p. 421. et seqq. 



On the Book of Ecclesiastes. 785 

orderly procedure of his discourse or disputatiou. We do not agree 
with Hengstenberg 1 , in thinking that the accusation in question 
proceeds on a wrong grammatical perception; as if the n (iii. 21.) 
should he rendered as the article, and ought not to be considered 
interrogative. All the ancient versions, LXX., Vulgate, Syriac, 
Chaldee, Arabic, make it the interrogative ; so does Luther ; and so 
most recent critics. When Hengstenberg says that the n according 
to its punctuation " cannot be the interrogative but must be the 
article," we regard the affirmation as incorrect, because the letter 
sometimes takes a dagesh after it, and that dagesh being here sup- 
pressed on account of the guttural following, the short vowel is 
lengthened. 

It is unnecessary to enumerate the very various and conflicting 
views which have been given of the plan pursued by the writer of the 
book. Mendlessohn's learning and ability have failed to show the 
true scope and outline ; for he errs in thinking that the two principal 
topics treated of are the evidences of the immortality of the soul, and 
the duty of cheerfulness in this life with a contented enjoyment of it, 
besides a recollection of duties to God who will bring us to account. 
When obliged to admit that " the discussion of these topics is inter- 
spersed with various recommendations, religious, political, and do- 
mestic, which come under no general denomination," 2 he confesses that 
he has misapprehended the unity and object of the whole. Yet Preston 
has followed him as a faithful guide, adopting his views and recom- 
mending them to the English reader. While some could see no unity 
or plan in it, as Nachtigal, Staudlin, Schmidt ; others thought that it 
contains a dialogue between two parties, an inquirer and a teacher ; 
and tried by this means to introduce a certain unity. Eichhorn 3 and 
a few others adopted this idea. The genius of Ewald first began to 
penetrate the obscurity of the book and to establish a close connection 
between the dhTerent parts. Perceiving its rhetorical and dialectic 
character, he endeavoured, with but partial success, to unfold the 
general plan, and consecution of ideas. 4 It was reserved for Yaihinger 
to complete what Ewald failed to fulfil, by showing the internal progress 
of the proposed theme in the hands of the author, the objections 
started and obviated in each of the four discourses, and the satisfac- 
tory result arrived at. Whoever mistakes the general outline of the 
book, and the gradual development of the fundamental idea discussed 
in it, must be in the dark respecting its nature and use. Those who 
wish to see the different theories which have been entertained re- 
specting the method and design of the work must have recourse to 
Keil 5 and Stuart. 6 The character of the work is analogous to that of 
Proverbs. It belongs in part to the didactic poetry of the Hebrews; 
many places having a gnomological cast. But the Proverbs are dis- 

1 In Kitto's Cyclopaedia, art. Ecclesiastes. 

2 The book of Solomon called Ecclesiastes, by Preston, prelim, dissertation, p. 4. 

3 Einleitung, vol. t. p. 269. et seqq. 

4 Die Dichter, u. s. w. vol. iv. p. 194. 

5 In Hiiverniek's Einleit. vol. iii. p. 449. et segq. 

6 Commentary on Ecclesiastes, Introduction, p. 10. et seqq. 
VOL. II. 3 E 



786 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

connected, sententious sayings ; whereas we have here a philosophical 
discourse, where ideas and maxims are linked to one another in a 
poetical form. The gnomes and sentences which stand in the book 
of Proverbs in an isolated position are here interwoven with the 
thread of the argument, as it develops itself dialectically. 

Almost all the older interpreters ascribed the work to Solomon. 
This arose from the circumstance that Koheleth appears speaking in 
the person of the wise king. (i. 12. 16., ii. 4. &c, xii. 9. &c.) Yet 
Solomon is not named as the author either in the inscription or the 
body of the work. The first who called in question the Solomonic 
origin of the work was the sagacious Grotius, whom most recent 
critics in this respect follow. There are conclusive reasons for deny- 
ing that the son of David wrote it. 

1. The writer separates himself from king Solomon in i. 12., where 
he represents Koheleth as saying, " I was king over Israel in Jeru- 
salem." Whether this language be explained on the supposition that 
the writer sometimes forgets his fiction, or that it was consciously 
penned, is unimportant. The past tense was instead of the present, 
and the addition in Jerusalem point to a time after Solomon, when 
the kings of the Israelites had another royal residence, in Samaria. 
The answer of Holden and Preston to this argument is so weak that 
we need not cite it. 1 Because David reigned both in Hebron and 
Jerusalem, and Solomon only in the latter city, it is asserted that 
the place of residence is mentioned. It is also alleged by Holden, that 
Solomon may as well call himself king over Israel, as at the beginning 
of Proverbs, which are his work. But the book of Proverbs in its 
present form, and the expressions at the commencement respecting 
Solomon, did not proceed from the king himself. 

2. Various circumstances uttered by the speaker do not suit king 
Solomon ; or are inappropriate in his mouth. He complains bitterly 
of oppression, of judicial injustice, of the elevation of fools and slaves 
to high offices, &c, which Solomon would not have done, unless he 
meant to write a satire upon himself. Besides, the writer says (i. 16.), 
" Lo, I am come to great estate, and have gotten more wisdom than 
all they that have been before me in Jerusalem ; yea, my heart had 
great experience of wisdom and knowledge ; " which is incomprehen- 
sible in the lips of Solomon himself, but suitable to him in the mouth 
of a later writer. In like manner, the author says of his successor 
(ii. 12. 19.), " For what can the man do that cometh after the king? 
even that which hath been already done. Yea, I hated all my 
labour which I had taken under the sun ; because I should leave it 
unto the man that shall be after me. And who knoweth whether he 
shall be a wise man or a fool? Yet shall he have rule over all my 
labour wherein I have laboured," &c. &c. In like manner v. 7. would 
be a satire on his own reign. In viii. 3. unlimited obedience to a 
king is enjoined, even in relation to an evil command. In reply 
to these considerations, Holden informs us that " under the adminis- 

1 Attempt to illustrate the Book of Ecclesiastcs, Preliminary Dissertation, p. xviii.; and 
Preston's " The Hebrew Text and a Latin Version of the Book of Solomon, called Eccle- 
siastes, &c," Preliminary Discourse, p. 6. 



On the Book of Ecclesiastes. 787 

tration of Solomon the great and powerful were doubtless at times 
tyrannical, judges were often partial, and men were sometimes pre- 
ferred to offices for which they were neither fitted by their talents 
nor their virtues. These evils, which the most consummate wisdom 
cannot entirely prevent, the king himself might lament, as well as 
any of his subjects, without being self-condemned." 1 How the writer 
came to know all this, he does not inform us. It is purely imagi- 
nary. In like manner some of the passages are explained away by 
Preston, after Mendlessohn, so as to be unsuitable to king Solomon. 
But the natural sense is reluctant to give way. 

3. The strongest argument against the authorship of Solomon is 
the character of the language, which is of a late complexion. Ara- 
maean words and forms show clearly that it belongs to the post-exile 
period. Philosophical expressions also of late origin are peculiar 
to the book. Of later Chaldaisms may be specified -1?X, if vi. 6. ; 
S-lt, to tremble, xii. 3. ; \Q\, time, iii. 1. ; "W~2, to be fortunate or 
happy, x. 10., xi. 6. ; 'VIP, a province, ii. 8., v. 7. ; B|r>3, a 
decree, viii. 11. ; "i#3, interpretation, viii. 1. ; o2&, to rule, ii. 19. &c. ; 
\Sd)v, ruler, viii. 4. 8. ; \pn, to be straight, i. 15., vii. 13. &c. ; fppn, 
mighty, vi. 10.; 133, long ago, i. 10., iii. 15., vi. 10. &c; KfTlD, that ivhich, 
i. 9., iii. 15. &c. ; ^B3, cease, fail, xii. 3. ; \\Vi, thing, matter, ii. 26. , 
on/in-}!, son of nobles, x. 17. ; Y^, without, ii. 25. ; nxpp, pregnant, xi. 
5. Philosophical expressions are such as &?., the being or nature of a 
thing, ii. 21., viii. 14. &c. ; a number of abstract forms as n-l^.h, fool- 
ishness,^. 13.; rvtap, folly, i. 17., ii. 3. &c. ; rwlqtf, youth, xi. 10.; 
T\hw, slothfulness, x. 18. ; jhtt, good, i. 3., ii. 11. &c. ; 3to, good, viii. 
12, 13. ; P^n, the lot of man in life, ii. 10., iii. 22. &c. ; Jtatfp, reason, 
understanding, vii. 25. &c ; rvijn, pursuit, i. 14., ii. 11. &c. ; fvy% the 
same as last, ii. 22. 2 The examples now given are impervious to the 
sifting process which Herzfeld 3 has applied to Knobel's list, by means 
of which he finds no more than between eleven and fifteen young 
Hebrew expressions and constructions ; and between eight and ten 
Chaldaisms. This number is too few. Ewald, no mean judge, 
asserts that the Hebrew is so strongly penetrated with Aramaean 
that not only single often-recurring words are entirely Aramaean, but 
the foreign influence is infused into the finest veins of the language. 4 
Here we are surprised to find Preston affirming that the " Chal- 
dee, Arabic, and Hebrew, having all emanated from the same source, 
it is manifestly impossible to pronounce with certainty, on a word 
occurring in so confessedly an ancient (?) book as Ecclesiastes, that 
it belongs to either of the two former and not to the latter, because 
the farther we trace these dialects back, the greater will be their 
similarity : and even supposing some of the words to be foreign and 
Aramaic, Solomon may easily have acquired them through his con- 
stant intercourse with the neighbouring nations, or from his foreign 
wives, especially as this book Avas written late in life." Such 
feeble argumentation is unworthy of so good a Hebrew scholar. 

1 Attempt, &c. pp. xv. xvi. - See Knobel, n. s. w. p. 70. 

3 Koheleth uebersetzt uud erlaeutert, 1838. 4 Die Dichter, u. s. w. vol. iv. p. 178. 

3 E 2 



788 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

What serves to confirm the inference which one must draw from 
the language as to its lateness is a comparison with that of Proverbs 
Avhich is strikingly different. The one belongs to the first period of 
the language, when it was pure ; the other, when it degenerated and 
became Chaldaising. And the class of subjects to which both belong 
are not so diverse as to account for this difference of diction. Both 
belong to the same class, the didactic. Hence Preston's assertion, 
" that the difference of style may be fully accounted for by the dif- 
ferent nature of the subjects," should be met with a direct negative. 

We are aware of the fact, that there are a few terms common to 
the Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. But these are resolvable into the 
study of the writings of Solomon and of the old Hebrew gnomology. 
No weight belongs to them as isolated terms, when set over against 
the general colouring of the style in Ecclesiastes, which is undoubtedly 
Chaldaising. Hence the composition of the book belongs to an un- 
known author living after the exile. When he introduces Solomon 
as speaking, he adopts a harmless form, without intending to produce a 
supposititious volume. As Solomon had the highest reputation for 
wisdom, he appeared the fittest person to be taken as the discourser 
on so many topics. That he is not introduced in his individual 
capacity, follows from the name Koheleth. He is the representa- 
tive of wisdom ; and besides he had passed through a varied life 
where he had many opportunities of experiencing the vanity of all 
earthly things. As speeches are put into the mouths of Job and his 
friends ; so here Solomon as Koheleth is introduced as the speaker. 

If any thing were wanting to show the certainty of the conclusion 
deduced from all the phenomena specified, especially from the cha- 
racter of the language, we should refer to the manner in which 
Holden tries to meet them. He even goes so far as to question the 
existence of Chaldaic expressions in the book. " Although a few 
words used by the author of the Ecclesiastes occur nowhere else 
except in the Chaldee part of Daniel and in the Targums, none 
have been produced in form and inflection unequivocally Chaldaic; 
and for any thing that appears to the contrary, they may have been 
pure Hebrew words, in familiar circulation while that language con- 
tinued to be vernacular." Again " Chaldaisms in fact supply no 
sure criterion to determine the late origin of a work in which they 
are found ; for Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic, having ema- 
nated from one common source, the higher we ascend the greater 
will be the resemblance." l This is extraordinary logic, which may 
be safely left to determine its own worth. 

We trust that no one will be tempted, in consequence of the mere 
mode in which the writer of Ecclesiastes sets forth his work, to in- 
dulge in the illiberal language of censure against all sound critics, 
who upon the ground of safe evidence, deny the Solomonic author- 
ship. ' f It would be injudicious," says Holden, "it would be dan- 
gerous, it would be irreligious to desert this combined testimony 
[that Solomon wrote the work] for bold assertion and ingenious con- 
jecture." 2 The fiction by which Solomon, under the title Koheleth, 

1 Preliminary Dissertation, pp. xi. xii. 2 Ibid. p. xxv. 



On the Book of Ecclesiastes. 789 

is introduced as speaking is an innocent one. Certainly it was not 
meant to deceive any one ; for the past tense is used, " I was king," 
to which is added "over Israel in Jerusalem ; " while at the close 
(xii. 9, 10.), the first person is laid aside for the third. The dress 
or costume in which the ideas of the unknown writer are conveyed 
is transparent. 

As to the date of the book, it is difficult to settle it. Those who 
think with Hengstenberg that the canon was completed in the time 
of Ezra and Nehemiah maintain of necessity, that Ecclesiastes did 
not originate later than that. But the opinion in question is un- 
doubtedly incorrect ; as well as that of Josephus, who seems to fix 
the final settlement of the canon in the reign of Artaxerxes. In 
determining the age of the book, neither hypothesis respecting the 
canon should influence our decision, especially as both are untenable. 

The contents, as well as the diction, point to a period subsequent 
to the exile. They give a gloomy view of the world. The philosophy 
of life presented is dark. It would seem that the people were op- 
pressed by heathen magistrates. They suffered injustice and violence. 
They felt the severity of arbitrary government. Tyrannical rulers 
were emboldened to continue their doings, because punishment was 
protracted, (viii. 11.) Slaves were suddenly promoted to the highest 
offices, (x. 6, 7.) The governors were sensual, avaricious, incapable, 
and indolent men. (x. 15 — 19.) When we add to this that idolatry 
is never alluded to ; but that the people were outwardly devoted to 
Jehovah and attached to the temple worship (v. 1 — 7.); we think 
of the later period of the Persian government in Palestine, which 
probably became severe and odious at the last. Notwithstanding 
the external worship of the Lord, the people appear not to have 
been pious. Instead of finding the cause of their outward and con- 
tinued misfortunes in themselves — their impenitence and unbelief — 
they were tempted to indulge in sorrowful complaints of the distress 
of the times, and doubts respecting the righteous character of the 
divine government; for the author sets forth admonitions against 
murmurings, and in favour of contentedness with the unalterable 
arrangements of divine Providence. There is considerable simi- 
larity between the descriptions found in the book of Malachi and 
Ecclesiastes. Both present a prevailing self-righteousness — an 
endeavour to obtain justification by works. Outward attachment to 
the forms of religion with little or no spiritual life, characterise the 
times in which both works appeared. The prophecies of Malachi 
even contain examples of the dialogue-form of discourse, approaching 
to that of our present work which appears as a discourse or series of 
discourses addressed to an assembly of hearers. Hence we are led 
to conclude that the author lived in the later period of the Persian 
government, not long after the time of Malachi, i. e. 350 — 340 b. C. 
Perhaps the beginning of the Macedonian dominion is too late. At 
any rate it contains neither Grecian philosophy nor words. Accord- 
ingly, Rosemnuller, Knobel, Ewald, De Wette, place it about the 
later period of the Persian rule, or at the commencement of the 
Macedonian era. Others bring it down later ; Zirkel, Bergst, and 

3 E 3 



790 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Bertholdt, to the space between Alexander the Great and Antiochus 
Epiphanes ; Hartmann to the Maccabean period ; and Hitzig to 204 
B. C. The last hypothesis is artificially deduced from various passages, 
as viii. 2., x. 16 — 19., vii. 26., ix. 13— 15.,viii. 2 — 4., x. 5 — 7., xi.2., 
by a series of arbitrary historical combinations ; and has been refuted 
by Halm. 1 Hitzig's objections to its composition in the Persian period 
are trivial. 2 

The analogy of Ecclesiastes to the Wisdom of Solomon which 
was written in Greek, is striking. Both purport to come from 
Solomon ; and both regard wisdom as personified in him. No He- 
brew book comes so near Ecclesiastes as this apocryphal one. But 
though the latter was written in Egypt; it is evident that Ecclesiastes 
was not. It is a Palestinian production. Jerusalem was the writer's 
home. (viii. 10., v. 1 — 7.) 

Although Ecclesiastes is not quoted in the New Testament, yet 
it was in the canonical list at the time of Christ and the apostles ; 
and formed a part of the sacred collection which they sanctioned. 
Hence there is no reason for doubting its authority. The New 
Testament writers had no occasion to cite it, as the subject discussed 
lay at a distance from their immediate teachings ; or is treated 
in a method not well suited for quotation. Nothing unfavourable 
to its character can be drawn from the fact in question. 



CHAP. XVI. 

SONG OF SOLOMON. 



The first verse styles the Song of Solomon D*T^!3 y$ 3 a Song of 
Songs, i. e. according to the Hebrew idiom, the most excellent song ; 
and assigns its authorship to Solomon, the ? before TVtih& designating 
the writer, as in the inscriptions prefixed to many Psalms. 

The most important question connected with this work is, what is 
its subject? All agree that it is love; but what kind of love, it is 
difficult to ascertain. Is it human love, that which exists between 
man and woman; or is it spiritual love, such as exists between God 
and the soul, or Christ and his church? We shall give the chief 
considerations in favour of both hypotheses. 

1. From a very early period the book has been explained as 
allegorical both by Jews and Christians. As far as we can trace the 
matter in history, Origen was the first who illustrated the book 
allegorically. Admitting the historical sense, which regards the poem 
as an epithalamium on the marriage of Solomon with Pharaoh's 
daughter, he adopts a hidden sense or divine allegory beneath the 
garb of the other, according to which the church, or the soul of the 

1 In Kenter's Repertorium for 1848, xiv. p. 104. et seqq. 

2 la the Exeget. Handbuch, part 7. p. 121. 



On the Song of Solomon. 791 

believer, converses with the Redeemer. Jerome says, that Origen 
wrote ten books of commentaries on the poem, containing twenty- 
thousand stichi; and in his epistle to Damasus, he observes, that 
whereas in his other works Origen had excelled all others ; in that on 
Canticles he surpassed himself. This view was adopted by Jerome 
and most of the fathers; and has always been the jtrevailing one 
among Christians. It is of little importance to mark the distinction 
between such as maintain a historical basis or sense besides an al- 
legorical one, and those who reject the foundation of historical truth, 
maintaining the poem to be a simple allegory ; because, with both 
classes of expositors, the hidden or spiritual sense is that which the 
writer meant to convey. The Chaldee paraphrase or Targum regards 
the work as a figurative description of God's gracious conduct towards 
his people in delivering them from the bondage of Egypt, in conferring 
singular favours upon them during their wanderings in the wilderness, 
and finally establishing them in the promised land. Abenezra, be- 
longing to the twelfth century, exclaims : " Abhorred, abhorred be 
the thought that the Song of Songs should be put among the works of 
fleshly lust ! On the contrary, it must be understood in the way of 
parable : and unless its loftiness were great, it would not have been 
put into the collection of the sacred writings; and there is no dif- 
ference of opinion upon it." In Midrash Shir, a historical and alle- 
gorical commentary on the Song, it is said, "that their wise men had 
disputed about the authority of Ecclesiastes, but never had any de- 
bate about the divine authority of this book." Rabbi Akiba expresses 
himself thus : '■ Far be it from any Israelite to say that the Song of 
Songs pollutes the hands, or is not holy, because the whole world is 
not of so great value as that day wherein the Song of Songs was given 
to Israel; for all the Hagiographa are holy, but the Song of Songs 
is most holy ; and if there has been any difference of opinion about 
Solomon's writings, it has only been about Ecclesiastes." " Ten songs 
are sung in this world," says the Targum, " but this song is the 
most excellent of them all." The Jews also compared the three 
books which bear Solomon's name to the three parts of the temple 
which he built; the Proverbs to the porch; Ecclesiastes to the holy 
place; and the Canticles to the most holy, signifying that it is a 
treasury of the highest and most sacred mysteries of Scripture. 

2. At the commencement, we meet with the moral of the poem, 
which serves as a key to its meaning throughout : " The upright 
love thee " (verse 4.), i. e. men of rectitude, or righteous men love 
thee. The Bridegroom is here shown to be the righteous one whom 
all souls love. The object of the love described is the Righteous One, 
whom all righteous persons do love. This is as plain a key as the 
nature of the allegory authorises us to expect. 1 

3. That this is not a song of human loves is clear, from the com- 
mencement to the end. It opens with the language of the female, 
"let him kiss me;" it abounds with her praises of his person, and 
her dispraises of herself, of her person, and her conduct; it invites 

1 Congregational Magazine for 1838, p. 149. 
3 E 4 



792 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

other females to love him ; and it speaks of him as her brother, and 
of her as his sister. In the third verse the bride says, " The virgins 
love thee." " On the supposition of an ordinary love-song this is a 
monstrous violation of all propriety. The jealousy of female love 
could never endure that one who courted her should tell her, what- 
ever he might think, that the maidens loved him, and should make 
her tell it him too." The fifth verse has, U I am black but comely." 
" Did ever human lover make her whom he calls the fairest among 
women say this of herself, however disparagingly an humble female 
may think of her own beauty." " If thou know not . . . go. . . . and 
feed thy kids beside the shepherds' tents." (verse 8.) " Here again the 
discrepancy with human loves is shocking, not to say ludicrous." 
" Thy cheeks are comely with rows (of jewels), thy neck with chains 
(of gold)." (verse 10.) Here we arrive at those luxuriant descriptions 
of the bride's person which afford evidence that the theme is solely 
spiritual. 1 

Again, " The larger part and the most magnificent part of this poem 
is occupied with the praises of the bridegroom, to whom his bride is 
mere foil, in every particular, except when he speaks of her in the lan- 
guage of love. Now, though the ancients often spoke of themselves 
in a way that ill suits our ideas of modesty, and though females in the 
East were depressed below the rank they hold with us, none of these 
considerations can account for the relative positions which the bride- 
groom and bride assume in this song." " The calling of the bride 
'sister' neither accords with Solomon's marrying Pharaoh's daughter, 
nor with any human conjugal ideas, except the incestuous ones of the 
Cleopatras, which were abhorrent from Jewish sentiments ; and the 
same may be said of the bride's wishing the bridegroom were her 
brother, who sucked the breasts of the same mother." 2 

4. The characters introduced are all spiritually applied elsewhere. 
The covenant relation which subsisted between Jehovah and the 
people of Israel is frequently represented by the emblematical union 
of a married pair. (Hosea i. ii. iii. ; Ezekiel xvi. ; Jerem. iii. ; Isaiah 
li. 17 — 23.) In like manner the relation of Christ to his church is 
described in the New Testament by the purest exhibition of the mar- 
riage state. Christ is called the bridegroom of his people. The 
church is the bride, the Lamb's wife. The first disciples of our Lord 
are called friends of the bridegroom, and children of the bridecham- 
ber. (Matthew ix. 15.; John iii. 29.) When the bride expresses 
her desire to be drawn, we are reminded of God's language by Hosea 
(xi. 4.), "I drew them with cords of a man, with bands of love; " or 
the promise of our Lord himself, " I will draw all men unto me" 
(John xii. 32.). Ch. i. 7 '. feedest (Isa. xl. 11.; John x. 3.). Chap. ii. 
3. fruit (Matt. xxvi. 29.); verse 8. voice of my beloved (John x. 3, 4.). 
Chap. iv. 1. 7. fair, no spot in thee (Eph. v. 27.). Chap. v. 2. 
my beloved — knocketh (Rev. iii. 20.). Chap. vi. 10. "fair as the 
moon, clear as the sun " (Rev. xii. 1.). Chap. viii. 14. make haste, 
my beloved (Rev. xxii. 17. 21.). In the second chapter the bride 

1 Congregational Magazine for 1838, p. 149. et seqq. 2 Ibid. pp. 151, 152. 



On the Song of Solomon. 793 

is compared to the rose and the lily, which images are repeatedly 
applied to the church of God by different prophets. (Compare Hosea 
xiv. 5.; Isa. xxxv. 1.) The resemblance of the church to a dove 
is in perfect harmony with our Lord's making that bird a pattern to 
his disciples. The allusion also to foxes, as the types of tyrants and 
heretics, is quite in the Scripture style. Thus many parallels justify 
and confirm the spiritual interpretation of the poem. This is es- 
pecially the case with the 45th Psalm, which is an epitome of So- 
lomon's Song. That Psalm speaks solely of the marriage of Christ 
and the church : why should we not form the same conclusion con- 
cerning the Canticles ? * 

5. It has been usual from a remote antiquity, with oriental nations, 
to teach religious doctrines, and inculcate devotional sentiments, 
under the disguise of amatory and drinking songs. This is the case 
with the songs of Hafiz, a Persian writer of the fourteenth century. 
The love-poems Nisamis, Leila and Medsnun, Jussuf and Suleicha, 
have been explained allegorically by the commentators. This usage 
of expressing the intercourse of the soul with God in productions ap- 
parently of an amatory nature, which prevailed extensively among 
the Persians, Turks, Arabians, and Hindoos, has been copiously 
illustrated by Lane, who was present at some of the religious ex- 
ercises of the Mohammedan dervishes in Cairo. " The darweesh," 
says Lane, " pointed out the following poem as one of those most 
common at zikrs, and as one which was sung at the zikr which I 
have begun to describe. I translate it verse for verse ; and imitate 
the measure and system of the original, with this difference only, that 
the first, third, and fifth lines of each stanza rhyme with each other 
in the original, but not in my translation. 

"With love my heart is troubled; 

And mine eye-lid hindereth sleep : 

My vitals are dissever'd ; 

While with streaming tears I weep. 

My union seems far distant : 

Will my love e'er meet mine eye? 

Alas ! Did not estrangement 

Draw my tears, I would not sigh. 
" By dreary nights I'm wasted : 

Absence makes my hope expire : 

My tears, like pearls, are dropping; 

And my heart is wrapt in fire. 

Whose is like my condition? 

Scarcely know I remedy. 

Alas ! Did not estrangement 

Draw my tears, I would not sigh. 

" O turtle-dove ! acquaint me 
Wherefore thus dost thou lament? 
Art thou so stung by absence? 
Of thy wings depriv'd, and pent? 
He saith, ' Our griefs are equal : 
Worn away with love, I lie. 
Alas ! Did not estrangement 
Draw my tears, I would not sigh. 

1 Congregational Magazine for 1838, pp. 200, 201. 



794 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

" O First, and sole eternal ! 
Show thy favour yet to me. 
Thy slave, Ahmad El-Bekree 
Hath no Lord excepting thee. 
By Ta-Ha, the Great Prophet ! 
Do thou not his wish deny. 
Alas ! Did not estrangement 
Draw my tears, I would not sigh." 

I must translate a few more lines, to show more strongly the simi- 
larity of these songs to that of Solomon ; and lest it should be 
thought that I have varied the expressions, I shall not attempt to 
render them into verse. In the same collection of poems sung at 
zikrs is one which begins with these lines : — 

" O gazelle from among the gazelles of El- Yemen I 
I am thy slave without cost: 
O thou small of age, and fresh of skin ! 
O thou who art scarce past the time of drinking milk ! " 

In the first of these verses we have a comparison exactly agreeing 
with that in the concluding verse of Solomon's Song ; for the word 
which in our Bible is translated a " roe " is used in Arabic as syno- 
nymous with " ghazal " (or a gazelle) ; and the mountains of El- 
Yemen are "the mountains of spices." This poem ends with the 
following lines : — 

" The phantom of thy form visited me in my slumber : 
I said, ' O phantom of slumber ! who sent thee? ' 
He said, ' He sent me whom thou knowest ; 
He whose love occupies thee.' 

The beloved of my heart visited me in the darkness of night : 
I stood, to show him honour, until he sat down. 
I said, * O thou my petition, and all my desire ! 
Hast thou come at midnight, and not feared the watchmen? ' 
He said to me, ' I feared; but, however, love 
Had taken from me my soul and my breath.' " 

Compare the above with the second and five following verses of 
the fifth chapter of Solomon's Song. — Finding that songs of this de- 
scription are extremely numerous, and almost the only poems sung 
at zikrs ; that they are composed for this purpose, and intended only 
to have a spiritual sense (though certainly not understood in such a 
sense by the generality of the vulgar) ; I cannot entertain any doubt 
as to the design of Solomon's Song. The specimens which I have 
just given of the religious love-songs of the Muslims have not been 
selected in preference to others as most agreeing with that of So- 
lomon, but as being in frequent use ; and the former of the two as 
having being sung at the zikr which I have begun to describe. 1 

That the poets of Hindostan indulged in similar compositions is 
shown by a reference to the Gitagovinda, the production of a ce- 
lebrated Hindoo poet named Jayadeva. This is a mystical poem, 
intended to celebrate the loves of Crishna and Radha, or the reci- 
procal attraction between the divine goodness and the human soul. 
It may be found in the third volume of the Asiatic Researches; or at 
the end of Dr. A. Clarke's Commentary on the Canticles. 

1 Account of the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians, vol. ii. p. 215. et seqq. 



On the Song of Solomon. 795 

6. (C In what part of the Hebrew Bible can we find any composi- 
tion of an analogous nature? All — every Psalm, every piece of 
history, every part of prophecy — has a religions aspect, and (the 
book of Esther perhaps excepted) is filled with theocratic views of 
things. How came there here to be such a solitary exception, so 
contrary to the genius and nature of the whole Hebrew Bible ? It is 
passing strange, if real amatory idyls are mingled with so much, all 
of which is of a serious and religious nature. If the author viewed 
his composition as being of an amatory nature, would he have sought 
a place for it among the sacred books ? And subsequent redactors or 
editors — would they have ranked it here, in case they had regarded 
it in the same light ? I can scarcely deem this credible. So different 
was the reverence of the Jews for their Scriptures from any mere ap- 
probation of an amatory poem as such, that I must believe that the 
insertion of Canticles among the canonical books, was the result of 
a full persuasion of its spiritual import. Had the case stood other- 
wise, why did they not introduce other secular works, as well as 
this, into the canon?" 1 

Among such as adopt the allegorical or spiritual interpretation, 
considerable diversity of opinion exists. We have already seen that 
the Targumist explains it as a figurative description of God's conduct 
toward the Jews in delivering them from Egypt, guiding them 
through the wilderness, and conveying them in safety to the pro- 
mised land. Abenezra, again, regards it as containing a history of the 
Jews from Abraham to the Messiah. Rosenmiiller looks upon it as 
an allegory describing the mutual loves of Solomon and Wisdom. 
This view had been held before by Leo Hebrams and Abrabanel. 
Kaiser thinks that it is a historico-allegorical song relating to Zerub- 
babel, Ezra, and Nehemiah as the restorers of a Jewish constitution 
in the province of Judah. Halm finds in it the idea, allegorically 
carried out, that the kingdom of Israel was called to overcome 
heathenism at last with the weapons of love and justice, to be brought 
back to peace and fellowship with it, and consequently with God. 
Hug regards it as a dream-poem in which Solomon is said to re- 
present king Hezekiah, the Shulamite the ten tribes, and her love, 
the longing of these tribes to be reunited to this king. Delitzsch and 
Nagelsbach regard it as a poetically idealised description of a love- 
relation experienced by Solomon, through which the idea or mystery 
of marriage is dramatically developed as an image and type of the 
union of the Lord with his church. The most common view is, 
either that it represents the union between Christ and the church, or 
the union of an individual believer's soul with Christ. Perhaps the 
least objectionable of these allegorical expositions is that of Keil, ac- 
cording to whom, under the allegory of the marriage- love of Solomon 
and the Shulamite, is depicted, in dramatic-lyric choruses, the mutual 
love subsisting between the Lord and his church, agreeably to its 
ideal nature resulting from the choice of Israel to be the church of 
Jehovah. Thus every interruption of this communion arising from 

1 Stuart's Critical History and Defence of the Old Testament Canon, pp. 342, 343. ed. 
Davidson. 



796 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

the infidelity of Israel is made the occasion of a closer consolidation 
of the covenant of love, through a return to the true covenant-God 
and his unutterable mercy. 

On the other hand, many recent interpreters contend for the literal 
explanation of the book. 

1. In no part is it affirmed or implied that the work is allegorical. 
Such intimation is given in every instance of Bible allegory, either in 
the structure or by some annexed expression, so that the sense and 
design cannot be mistaken. (Judges ix. 7 — 20.; 2 Kings xiv. 9, 10.; 
Psal. xlv. lxxx. ; Isa. v. 1 — 7. ; Ezek. xvi. xxxvii. 1 — 14. ; Acts x. 
10 — 17. ; Gal. iv. 22 — 31. ; the parables of our Lord, the Apocalyptic 
visions.) 

2. In all the passages of Scripture which make a figurative use of 
the marriage-contract and state, the general idea of the marriage 
union is chiefly dwelt upon, without going into many or minute 
details ; while the religious signification is constantly brought out. 
But here particulars, not the chief subject, form the whole compo 
sition. We scarcely find the central point at all, if it consist in the 
actual marriage, — the sacred union — of Christ and his church. The 
embellishments of scenery, action, and conjugal endearment are 
abundant and perplexing, hiding what is said to be the principal 
thing. All is decoration and colouring. 

3. The reverence for Jehovah which existed in the Hebrew mind 
would have prevented a writer from composing a poem to illustrate 
the love existing between God and his people. Would he have 
used, in addressing Jehovah, such language as, " Let him kiss me 
with the kisses of his mouth ; for thy caresses are better than wine ? " 
Would he have spoken to the High and Holy One in the language, 
" Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away ? " Would Solomon 
have addressed his Creator in the language, " The voice of my 
beloved ! Behold, he comes, leaping upon the mountains, bounding 
over the hills. Like a gazelle is my beloved, or a young hind, &c. ? " 
Such expressions applied to the High and Lofty One that inhabiteth 
eternity are irreverent, unsuitable, and inconsistent with the sublime 
prayer of Solomon at the dedication of the temple. 

4. There are traces in the Mishnah of doubts having been enter- 
tained among the Jews respecting the book. Thus we read in tr. 
Jadaim. " R. Jehudah saith, e Canticles make the hands unclean, 
but Ecclesiastes is [subject] to a dispute [difference of opinion].' 
R. Jose saith, e Ecclesiastes does not make the hands unclean, but 

the Canticles are [subject to] a dispute.' R. Simeon Ben 

Azai said, e I have it as a tradition from the mouths of seventy-two 
elders, on the day they inducted R. Eleazar ben Azariah into the 
president's seat, that Canticles and Ecclesiastes [both] make the 
hands unclean.' " ' The treatise Pirke Aboth refers to similar doubts 
about the authenticity. We are also told by Origen and Jerome, 
that the Jews forbad any one to read the book till he was thirty 
years of age ; a restriction approved by those fathers. This prohi- 

1 See eighteen treatises from the Mishna, translated by the Eev. D. A. De Sola and the 
Rev. M. J. Raphall, p, 362. 



On the Song of Solomon. 797 

bition was extended to the beginning and end of Ezekiel and the 
first part of Genesis, but for a different reason, — the difficulty of 
vnder standing them ; while in the case of the Canticles, moral danger 
led to the restriction. " It is a part of the glory of genuine revelation to 
have no mysteries, as the heathen had, into which only select persons 
were to be initiated. There are indeed passages in the Pentateuch 
and the Old Testament historical books, which are not desirable to 
be publicly read, but this is purely on account of the archaic simplicity 
of some expressions, a simplicity consistent in that state of society 
with the most perfect purity and gravity ; but that a whole book, 
Avhich is maintained to consist entirely of the sublimest scenes of 
devotion, the purest exercises of divine life in the human soul, 
should yet be unfit for general use, appears not well in accordance 
with the idea of writings given for men's universal benefit, to make 
them 'wise unto salvation.'" 1 Besides," Do Christian ministers who 
are at liberty to select their own church lessons, commonly or fre- 
quently take them from this book ? Do they not, in act at least, 
confess that an insuperable moral feeling stands in the way ? " 2 

5. It is extravagant to apply the language to the devotional 
exercises of a believer ; for it is far different from the deep humility, 
the reverence, and godly fear, which ever accompany the prayers and 
praises of the redeemed. 

6. The book makes no mention of Jehovah, his dominion, laws, 
sanctuary, or worship. It includes no lessons of faith, obedience, 
and piety towards God, or duty to man. 

7. The total silence of our Lord and his apostles in relation to the 
book appears to authorise the idea that it was little known or re- 
garded by the Jews of Palestine ; and that the Great Teacher, as well 
as his disciples, had no desire to rescue it from obscurity or oblivion. 

Such are the principal arguments of those who reject an allego- 
rical, and adopt a literal, exposition. In the particular view, however, 
they take of the book, they are by no means agreed. Thus some 
look upon it as a drama representing the victory of true love, or the 
reward of fidelity. Such substantially is the hypothesis of Jacobi, 
Hezel, Ammon, Stiiudlin, Lindemann, Umbreit, Koester, Ewald, 
Hirzel, Bottcher, Hitzig. Others again regard it as an epithalamium 
or nuptial song, on the occasion of Solomon's marriage with the Egyp- 
tian princess, or with some Israelite bride distinguished for beauty 
and virtue. So Grotius, Bossuet, Harmer, and others. Others 
think that it is a collection of erotic idyls, as B. Simon, Herder, 
Doederlein, Kleuker, Paulus, Eichhorn, Gaab, Jahn, Pareau, Doepke, 
De Wette, Hartmann, Magnus, Heiligstedt, Good, Sir William 
Jones. All the literalists, and those who find in it both a literal and 
allegorical sense, are divided about its representing connubial love, 
or pure love between the sexes before marriage, or the love of the 
head of a harem to one of its members. The most recent expositor 
(Hitzig), adopting the same view as Ewald and Umbreit, supposes 
the subject of the poem to be a beautiful country maiden of Shulem 

1 Pye Smith, in the Congregational Magazine for 1837. p. 427. 2 Ibid. 



798 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

brought into the harem of Solomon. But she is truly and passionately 
in love with a shepherd ; and this love arms her with strength and 
virtue to resist all the allurements of the king, to withstand all the 
sayings of the court ladies; so that at last Solomon gives up his 
wooing, and dismisses the inflexible maiden to her home. Thither 
accordingly she goes in the company of her friend, who had hastened 
to her on the wings of love. 1 

It is very perplexing to decide between the discordant views 
which have been noticed. On either side — the literal or the al- 
legorical, — grave difficulties lie, which it is impossible to clear 
away. Whichever view be adopted, it is exposed to many objec- 
tions. Hence the choice depends on the number of perplexing 
circumstances involved in the respective expositions. As a pre- 
liminary observation, it appears to us that the reception of the book 
into the canon implies its sacred character in the view of those who 
admitted it. The Jews who placed it there attached a spiritual 
meaning to it ; else they would not have dignified it with such a po- 
sition. It owes its place to its supposed allegorical character. Hence 
the question arises, Are we bound to follow the same view of a work 
as was held by the person or persons who collected the books ? Did 
they act by infallible inspiration in settling the canon of the Old 
Testament? Bishop Warburton answers in the affirmative. Be- 
lieving that the canon was settled by Ezra, he says, " Ezra wrote, 
and we may believe acted, by the inspiration of the Most High, 
amid the last blaze indeed, yet in the full lustre of expiring pro- 
phecy." 2 " And such a man," adds Bishop Gleig, " would not have 
placed any book that was not sacred, in the same volume with the 
Law and the Prophets." But this strong language is based on error. 
There are conclusive arguments which show that Ezra did not com- 
plete the canon. The Jewish tradition is, that the men of the great 
synagogue did so, of whom Ezra was one ; and that Simon the Just, 
who lived a considerable time after, was the last member of that 
synagogue. Who shall say that the men of the great synagogue 
(supposing the Jewish tradition historically correct, for it has been 
questioned with good reason) acted by infallible inspiration in placing 
and arranging the books? All the probabilities of the case are 
against the idea. And even if they were inspired, that fact would 
not ensure the infallibility of their actions. We hold, therefore, 
that while the collectors of the sacred books may have put the Can- 
ticles into the Hagiographa, believing them to have an allegorical 
sense; we may or may not adopt their opinion respecting the object 
and nature of the book. In other words, we are at liberty to depart 
from their view. What, then, is to be determined respecting the sub- 
ject? What is the love which the book depicts? Is it love between 
man and woman ; or between Jehovah and the church ; or the soul 
and Jehovah ; or Christ and the soul ? Is the sense literal or allego- 
rical ? 

1 See Hitzig's Das Hohe Lied erklart, Vorbemerkungen, p. 3. 

2 Quoted by Bishop Gleig in bis Introduction to Stackbouse's History of the Bible, 
vol. i. p. xxiii. 



On the Song of Solomon. 799 

Another observation has been suggested by various remarks in 
Stuart's Defence of the Old Testament Canon, "which is, that no 
stigma should be cast on those critics who regard the poem as 
amatory. When Stuart writes K amatory nearly all the German 
neologists suppose it to be" l , we cannot but regard the remark as an 
insinuation for the purpose of prejudicing the mind against such as 
take the same view. He would have his readers look upon them as 
leaning to neology. This is unfair ; for men quite as orthodox as he, 
Dr. Pye Smith, Dr. A. Clarke, Dr. Boothroyd, and Mr. Hewlett, 
abide by the literal meaning and reject the mystical. No man's fair 
reputation should be affected by his view of the Song of Solomon ; for 
evangelical doctrine is entirely independent of the point. Belief in 
the divine origin of the Scriptures rests upon another basis. 

The following considerations are submitted to the reader with 
much diffidence and hesitation, as those which have contributed 
to our opinion. They are stated together because their combined 
force has influenced the view to which our mind has been brought. 

1. One consideration adverse to the allegorical explanation is, that 
the poem itself contains no clear intimation of its being intended to 
bear a mystical or spiritual sense. It is neither expressly stated, nor 
obscurely hinted, that another than the obvious meaning was de- 
signed by the writer. In all analogous cases, we have some such 
direction in the allegory itself — something which serves to keep 
the expositor from taking the literal sense to be the chief or only 
one. Unless a sanction of this nature for the allegorical interpreta- 
tion be found in the poem, it is unwarrantable to adopt it. Other- 
wise a mere human hypothesis is presented. We know that it has 
been denied that a divine direction for the allegorical interpretation is 
contained in the 80th Psalm ; but that is incorrect ; for the heathen 
in the eighth verse, and the seventeenth verse where the man of thy 
right hand and the son of man mean Israel, show what is meant by 
the vine from Egypt. It has also been said, that the statement of 
Nathan to David (2 Sam. xii. 1 — 4.) was not suspected to be a pa- 
rable. But this is by no means certain. The king could scarcely avoid 
a suspicion of its purport, unless his conscience had become insensible, 
which we can hardly suppose to be the case. When the phrase in the 
fourth verse, " the upright love thee," is adduced by Bennett as a 
divine key to the allegory, the sense of it is entirely misapprehended ; 
for the true rendering is, " they love thee uprightly." 

2. There is not much in the book suited to the occasion of con- 
jugal love. A bridegroom seldom appears. A bride is not often 
mentioned. Nothing is more incorrect than the statement that 
" Solomon appears all through the poem as the royal spouse, made 
glad in the day of his espousals." 2 Had the poem been designed as 
allegorical, the bridegroom and bride should have appeared through- 
out ; for the covenant relation subsisting between Jehovah and 
Israel, as well as the love between Christ and the church, is always 
represented under the emblem of conjugal love. The only part of the 

1 Page 341. ed. Davidson. 

2 Bennett, in the Congregational Magazine for 1838, p. 155. 



800 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

poem in which espousals are described is in iii. 6 — v. 1. ; the rest of 
it has relation to other love. The nuptials of Solomon with one of 
the daughters of Jerusalem are celebrated only in that one section, 
which forms but a small part of the entire poem. Surely this fact 
does not harmonise with the hypothesis of a mystical explanation. 

3. There is no sufficient ground for an allegorical interpretation of 
the Song in any other part of Scripture. Here it is often argued, 
that the 45th Psalm authorises us to interpret the Song of Solomon 
spiritually. The Psalm in question having been supposed to describe 
the love between Messiah and his church ; its analogy to the poem before 
us pleads strongly for a like allegorical explanation. But it does not 
follow, because the sixth verse of the Psalm is quoted in the New 
Testament in favour of Christ's divinity, that the Psalm is generally 
descriptive of Messiah. There is no reason for holding that it has 
Christ for its subject, and must be allegorically explained of his love 
to the church. Modern exegesis repudiates this interpretation ; and 
therefore the analogy between Canticles and the Psalm fails. 1 

4. All the analogies adduced from the Old Testament, and especi- 
ally the Prophets, where Jehovah's relation to the Jewish people is 
described under the figure of marriage, are irrelevant ; because the 
subject is different here. It is not a wedded relation which forms the 
subject of the poem, but pure ante-nuptial love. Hence those who 
build an allegorical explanation on the ground of descriptions de- 
picting the covenant relation of Jehovah to his people under the 
figure of marriage, build on a false foundation. 

5. That the poem depicts the mutual love of Christ and the church, 
which is a very common supposition, perhaps the prevailing one, ap- 
pears to us exceedingly improbable under the Jewish dispensation, 
and from the pen of a Jewish writer. It would evince a clearer 
insight into the future, and a more detailed account of what was to 
be under the Christian dispensation, than any analogous example 
would warrant us to infer. An entire book exhibiting the reciprocal 
love of Christ and his redeemed church, under a dark and preparatory 
economy like the Jewish one, veiled so much that the most devout 
Jew could hardly have suspected or entered into its meaning, is a phe- 
nomenon out of place in the Jewish books ; especially at a period 
so long antecedent to the advent of the Messiah. 

6. The following language, supposed by the allegorical interpreters 
to be spoken by Jehovah to Israel, or by Christ to bis church, 
appears to us indecorous and irreverent on that hypothesis : — 

" Behold thou art fair, my love ! behold thou art fair ! 
Thou hast doves' eyes within thy locks; 

Thy hair is as a flock of goats that appear from Mount Gilead ; 
Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep that are even shorn, 
Which came up from the washing, 
Of which every one bear twins, 
And none is barren among them; 
Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet, 
And thy speech is comely; 

1 Comp. De Wette's Commentar ueber die Psalmen, pp. 323, 324. and Olshansen's Ee- 
marks in the Exegetiscb.es Handbuch, part xiv. p. 199. 



On the Song of Solomon. 801 

Thy temples are like a piece of a pomegranate within thy locks. 

Thy neck is like the tower of David 

Builded for an armoury, 

Whereon there hang a thousand bucklers, 

All shields of mighty men ; 

Thy two breasts are like two young rocs, 

Which feed among the lilies." Ch. iv. 1 — 5. 

So is this addressed to the same by the Lord, 

" How beautiful are thy feet with shoes, prince's daughter ! 
The joints of thy thighs are like jewels, 
The work of the hands of a cunning workman; 
Thy navel is like a round goblet which wanteth not liquor ; 
Thy belly is like an heap of wheat set about with lilies ; 
Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins ; 
Thy neck is as a tower of ivory ; 

Thine eyes like the fish-pools in Heshbon, by the gate of Bathrabbim ; 
Thy nose is as the tower of Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus. 
Thine head upon thee is like Carmel, 
And the hair of thine head like purple ; 
The king is held in the galleries [captivated by thy locks]. 
How fair and how pleasant art thou, love for delights! 
This thy stature is like to a palm-tree, 
And thy breasts to clusters of grapes. 
I said, I will go up to the palm-tree ; 
I will take hold of the boughs thereof, 
Now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, 
And the smell of thy nose like apples, 

And the roof of thy mouth like the best wine that goeth down sweetly, 
Causing the lips of those that are asleep to speak." Ch. vii. 1—9. 

On the other hand, the following language in the mouth of the 
church or believers, addressed to Christ, is equally unbecoming and 
irreverent. 

" I raised thee up under the apple-tree: 
There thy mother brought thee forth ; 
There she brought thee forth that bare thee." Ch. viii. 5. 

When we consider that the verb translated "I raised thee up" 
should be " I attracted thee to love," or, " I enticed thee," the 
phraseology in question approaches much nearer the profane. 

We hold that all such language is unsuitable, coming from Christ 
to believers, or from believers to Christ. It is unsuitable from Christ 
to believers, because it contains highly-wrought and extravagant 
encomiums upon them. Redeemed sinners can scarcely be the sub- 
ject of such admiring and laudatory strains proceeding from the Lord. 
It is unsuitable from believers to Christ, because it is inconsistent 
with the humility and penitence they are commanded to cherish 
towards him. Such expressions as, " I am sick of love ;" "I am a 
wall and my breasts like towers ; " " when I should find thee without, 

I would kiss thee I would lead thee and bring thee 

into my mother's house, who would instruct me : I would cause thee 
to drink of spiced wine of the juice of my pomegranate," &c. &c, 
appear to us very inappropriate to right-minded believers in commu- 
nion with the Redeemer. 

7. While we are aware of anthropopathy in the Scriptures, the 
affections or emotions of the human soul being ascribed in direct 

VOL. II. 3 F 



802 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

terms without any qualification whatever to tne Supreme Being, not 
even excepting those in which human frailty and imperfection most 
appear, we perceive in this poem a departure from the ordinary 
method of Scripture. The imagery of love is drawn out into minute 
details of personal parts and properties repugnant to a western mind ; 
which could not have been otherwise than repugnant to a devout 
Jewish mind ; and which are unlike the inspired descriptions else- 
where given. The prolixity and particularity of the book are beyond 
any thing found in the Old Testament, especially in relation to the 
person of the Lord. Had the poem, long as it is, dealt more in 
generals — had the figures been confined to outline and sketching — 
they would have presented a better claim to an allegorical interpreta- 
tion, because more in harmony with images relating to the Deity 
elsewhere ; but taste and propriety, as well as Scripture analogy, are 
violated by the tedious minuteness with which the one sentiment is 
treated, viz. that God loves his church and is loved of it. 

8. The tendency of the sensual imagery appears to us quite the 
reverse of that which has been ascribed to it, " admirably fitted to 
excite pious and devout affections in holy souls — to draw out their 
desires to God — to increase their delight in him, and improve their 
acquaintance and communion with him." 1 In opposition to this, we 
should be inclined to think, that the imagery of the poem would have 
a different effect on the oriental mind. The glowing imagination 
and exuberant emotions of the orientals would be liable to injury in 
their devotions, by using a help of this nature. This seems to have 
been felt by the Jews when they forbade its perusal to persons under 
thirty years of age. The Jewish religion was sufficiently sensuous 
in its character, without needing a stimulus of this kind to inflame it 
Even with our cold western temperament, and all the spirituality 
of the new dispensation, it is difficult for Christians generally, even 
the most advanced, to peruse it with profit. Indeed we have reason 
to believe that it is commonly neglected. It is not discoursed upon 
from the pulpit. It is not read in the family for devotional purposes. 
It is passed over in private reading, except by such as have a cu- 
riosity about it. There is a general shyness with regard to its perusal. 
Professor Stuart says, that it is " the safer and better course to place 
the Canticles, as the Jews did, among the D^133, or books withdrawn 
from ordinary use, and betake ourselves rather to the Psalms, and the 
Proverbs, and the Prophets, and the New Testament." 2 But why do 
this, if it expresses, as he says it does, " the warm and earnest desire 
of the soul after God?" The conduct of the Jews with regard 
to it shows that they apprehended some danger to the mind; and 
:s inconsistent with its alleged devotional tendency. Why should 
a book have been given of God to the people of Israel for their spi- 
ritual good, if it could not be commonly read without such a restric- 
tion ? It might as well not have been given, as far as very many 
were concerned, because they died before arriving at the age of 
thirty. But Stuart will have it to be a book " for Oriental Christians 

1 Rev. John Brown of Haddington, in his Self- interpreting Bihle. 

2 On the Canon of the Old Testament, p. 355. 



On the Song of Solomon. 803 

brought up very differently from us." x He would exempt most oc- 
cidental Christians from reading it for edification. This is going 
directly against the practice of the Jews, for whose spiritual advance- 
ment it is declared to have been written. We have no hesitation in 
saying, that western Christians, with their cooler temperament, are far 
less liable to abuse it. If any can extract wholesome and spiritual 
food from it, they ought surely to do so. Yet what is the case ? 
They commonly avoid it. It is far more liable to do harm to a 
Jewish or oriental mind than an occidental one ; and therefore we 
infer that it was not meant to have a mystical meaning. 

No weight belongs to the religious love-songs of the Mohammedan 
dervishes as analogous examples to the Canticles ; because the first 
specimen quoted by Lane directly introduces the Supreme Being, a 
circumstance which at once marks it as religious in its character, 
under the garb of love. The second specimen is only given in part ; 
and no decisive conclusion can be drawn from a mere extract. On 
the supposition that the Supreme Being is not introduced into any 
part of it, the fact of its being sung as a devotional hymn by the 
Mohammedans does not prove that it was intended by the writer for 
such. Their application cannot be taken as an evidence of the ori- 
ginal scope. 

In relation to the Hindoo poem, the Gitagovinda, its religious cha- 
racter is intimated at the close ; so that it is unlike the Canticles. 
Besides, Chrisna is the chief incarnated deity of the Hindoos; 
whereas only human characters are introduced into the Cant cle ■'. 
There are also allusions in the poem to other gods. It is difficult to 
judge of the pantheistic poems of the Sufis, and especially of Hafiz. 
Some think that these mystic poets themselves attached nothing more 
than a literal sense to their songs ; although the commentators upon 
them have found another besides. Sir William Jones inclines to the 
opinion of those who believe that the poets in question, whenever 
they appear to convey a secret sense, employ that expedient simply 
as a pretext for deceiving their credulous and superstitious " country- 
men ; and indulge in pleasure with the greater licence. 2 Umbreit is 
of the same opinion. 3 And this is favoured by the fact, that the 
poetry of Hafiz had no mystic sense in the eyes of the Persian 
doctors themselves, since Sudius, the most erudite of all the in- 
terpreters, explained it literally ; and the chief men of Shiraz were 
reluctant to allow sepulture to the poet because of the impurity of 
his poems. Thus it is more probable that Mohammedans and other 
commentators attributed an allegorical sense to what the Persian 
poets themselves wrote literally. " But after all, the great objection 
remains to any conclusion drawn from the pantheistic mystic poets, 
whether of Persia or India, whether Mohammedans' or Hindoos, 
namely, that their productions are founded on a religion and phi- 
losophy entirely different from the Jewish. The Canticles are pro- 
ductions of a different country, and separated from any of the songs 
of the Sufi poets by an interval of nearly two thousand years. The 

1 On the Canon of the Old Testament, p. 358. 

2 Asiatic Kesearches, vol. iii. p. 172. 3 Umbrcit's Lied dcr Liede, p. 5. 



804 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Jewish religion has nothing in common with the pantheistic mys- 
ticism on which those songs are founded. There is nothing in the 
Old Testament of a similar character. If any production similar to 
those mystical love-songs had existed in the religious literature of the 
Hebrews, undoubtedly we should have found some of them in the 
book of Psalms, which comprises compositions from the age preceding 
that of David to a period long after the return of the Jews from the 
captivity at Babylon. But in the most fervent Psalms, the forty- 
second for instance, nothing of the kind is found. Neither is any 
thing similar to these mystic songs ascribed to the Jewish sects, as 
described by Josephus and Philo. Nothing of the kind is laid to the 
charge of the Essenes. It is needless to say that nothing approaching 
to a like character is found in the New Testament. Nothing similar 
is discovered even in the allegorical paraphrase of the Targumist on 
the Canticles. All those religious love-songs are founded on the Sufi 
religion, or rather religious philosophy, which, whether it was 
borrowed from India, as Von Hammer supposes, or arose inde- 
pendently among the Mahometans, according to the opinion of 
Tholuck, has no connection with or resemblance to the Jewish. It 
is as different from the latter as darkness from light. The argument, 
therefore, which is drawn from the mystical songs of the Mahometan 
devotees for ascribing a mystical character to the Canticles is without 
foundation." 1 

Most of the arguments derived from the internal character of the 
poem against the supposition of its being a song of human love, 
rest upon misapprehension of the meaning ; or transfer occidental 
ideas and manners to oriental persons and times. He who does 
not keep in view the immense difference between the oriental and 
occidental mind — the luxuriant imagination and glowing ardour of 
the one expressing itself in hyperbolical diction, compared with the 
subdued character and coolness of the other, restrained by culture 
as well as innate tendency from sensuous luxuriance — must fall 
into error in judging of the poem. It is an eastern production ; 
and must be judged by the eastern standard of morals and taste. 
We are far from denying that it has excited the devotion of some 
very pure minds, as those of President Edwards, Rutherford, and 
M'Cheyne ; or that it may not be spiritualised, so as to yield in- 
struction and minister to piety. But the question still recurs, was 
this its original design ; or is it derived from the mind itself of 
the reader, nourished as that mind has been, by other Scriptures 
of plainer import ? Has the mystical interpretation been fairly 
taken from the poem ; or has it been put into it by the imagination 
.jf the expositor ? We cannot but think that the latter is the case ; 
for the spiritual explanations given are of the most far-fetched 
character ; not fairly suggested by the words, but superinduced on 
them by the ingenuity of commentators. The truth of this state- 
ment will appear from the following comment upon viii. 5. " I 
raised thee up under the apple-tree : there thy mother brought thee 

1 Noyes's New Translation of the Proverbs, Ecclcsiastcs, and the Canticles, pp. 131, 132. 



On the Song of Solomon. SOo 

forth ; there she brought thee forth that bare thee." The church is 
here supposed to address herself to Christ. " / raised thee up under 
the apple-tree, I have many a time wrestled with thee by prayer, 
and have prevailed. When I was alone in the acts of devotion, 
retired in the orchard, under the apple-tree, as Nathanael under the 
Jig-tree, meditating and praying, then I raised thee up, to help me 
and comfort me, as the disciples raised him up in the stoirn, saying, 
Master, carest thou not that we perish ? and the church (Psalm xliv. 23.)" 
Awake, why steepest thou ? . . . . There thy mother brought thee forth, 
the universal church or believing souls, in whom Christ was formed 
(Gal. iv. 19.) They were in pain for the comfort of an interest in 
thee, and travailed in pain with great sorrow ; so the word here 
signifies ; but they brought thee forth, the pangs did not continue 
always, they that had travailed in convictions, at last, brought forth in 
consolations, and the pain was forgotten, for joy of the Saviour's birth." 
Such is the mystical interpretation of the sober Matthew Henry. 
The same is given by Brown of Haddington. But Thomas Scott 
considers it as the language of Christ, not of the church, departing 
in that case from the Masoretic punctuation. 

The form of Canticles has been very variously represented. Some 
regard it as one continued connected poem ; while others look upon it 
as consisting of detached and separate pieces having little or no connec- 
tion. Sir William Jones and Dr. Good looked upon it as an idyl, or 
rather a number of idyls, all forming one whole. Bossuet regarded it 
as a drama or pastoral eclogue, consisting of seven acts, each act filling 
a day, concluding with the Sabbath. Others, as Lowth, suppose it to 
be an epithalamium, or nuptial dialogue. Its form approaches nearer 
to the dramatic than to any other species of poetry. There are dia- 
logue, scenes, localities in it. But it is not a regular drama. A 
definite number of acts, five for example, as Ewald supposes, cannot 
be made out. Neither can scenes be clearly counted. There is no 
chorus, no plot. Sometimes the description approaches the nature of 
idyl, as in v. 12 — 14. ; sometimes it is essentially lyric, as in ii. 8 — 
17. There is an unity in the whole, though not so close as some 
have supposed. This unity and integrity can be seen, notwithstand- 
ing the arbitrary attempt of Magnus to split up the poem into frag- 
ments, supplements, and multiform glosses. The internal unity is 
shown by the inscription song of songs, referring to what follows, by 
the similarity of contents and object, the uniform designation of per- 
sons, Solomon, the daughters of Jerusalem, &c. The beloved one is 
denoted by Hll or ^S3 nanKE?, he whom my soul loveth: the loved 
maiden is also described by the same phrases. In addition to 
these particulars, a number of characteristic expressions, images, and 
turns present themselves in all parts ; while whole sentences recur. 
Hence we have no hesitation in maintaining the integrity as well as 
unity of the composition. 

The object of the poem appears to be to depict true, chaste love in 
humble life. The sections or scenes are the following. After the 
inscription in the first verse, i. 2 — 8. represents a maiden newly taken 
from the country into the royal harem, i. 9 — ii. 7. Solomon ap- 



806 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

pears in the harem soliciting the Shulamite or innocent country- 
maiden in vain. ii. 8 — iii. 5. the Shulamite speaks alone, iii. 6 — 
v. 1. depicts the espousals of Solomon, not to Pharaoh's daughter, 
but to one of the daughters of Jerusalem. In v. 2 — vi. 3. the Shu- 
lamite speaks to the women of the palace, of her beloved. In vi. 4 — ■ 
vii. 1. Solomon speaks to the Shulamite, gives up the attempt to 
entice her; afterwards she speaks with her beloved, vii. 2 — 12. refers 
to Solomon and concubines. In vii. 12 — viii. 4. the Shulamite 
hastens to return home with her friend; and in viii. 5 — 14. she 
arrives at her home. Various difficulties occur with respect to the 
speakers in the sections ; which cannot now be resolved. Thus in the 
2d, 3d, and 4th verses of the first chapter, unless the words of the 
Shulamite and the women in Solomon's harem be distinguished, the 
meaning will be misapprehended, 1 

Viewing the subject of the poem in the light now presented, it is 
fraught with moral instruction. It warns against impure love, en- 
couraging chastity, fidelity, and virtue by depicting the successful 
issue of sincere affection amid powerful temptations. The innocent 
and virtuous maiden, true to her shepherd lover, resists the flatteries 
of a monarch, and is allowed to return to her home. At the same 
time, glances are afforded us of the voluptuous pleasures of the 
harem ; while wedded love is seen in its most attractive form. Mason 
Good, though believing the poem to be an allegory, thinks that even 
as affording a happy example of virtuous love between husband and 
wife, the work is entitled to the honour of constituting a part of the 
Sacred Scriptures. 2 Surely if this be correct, it is equally entitled to 
the same honour, when viewed as describing the victory of true ante- 
nuptial love. Still we are inclined to believe that the persons who 
put it in the canon regarded it as allegorical. They understood it 
in a mystical sense ; though that was not intended by the writer. 

The author of the poem is said in the title to be Solomon ; and 
therefore this has ever been the traditional opinion. In confirmation 
of it the circle of images recurring, and references to material things 
have been adduced. The language has also been appealed to as 
having various analogies with that of the Proverbs. But on the 
other hand, the title is no proof of authorship ; since we have seen 
that in the case of the Psalms, the titles were prefixed by ancient 
editors, and are sometimes incorrect. In the present instance, there 
is internal evidence that the title did not proceed from Solomon ; who 
would scarcely have pronounced his composition to excel all others 
of the kind, praising it as the most excellent or surpassing song. And 
there are indications in the poem that Solomon did not write it. The 
subject of it is not one which he would have undertaken ; for it is a 
severe censure on himself. He could scarcely have been brought to 
expose his shame in this public manner, except by the most powerful 
agency of the divine Spirit. Here is the triumph of innocent virtue 
tempted to sin by the king himself. It is therefore, as Hitzig says., 
a psychological impossibility that he would have written the composi- 

1 See Hitzig's Das Ilohe Lied crkliirt. z Comp. Good's Song of Songs, Preface. 



On the Song of Solomon. 807 

tion. The circumstance that he is introduced as speaking does not 
prove him to be the writer ; since others are likewise introduced by 
the poet. Besides, David is mentioned in such a manner as if he 
were not the author's father (iv. 4.) ; and the words of viii. 11. show 
that the writer was not contemporary with Solomon. As to the 
figures which appear, the number of the names of animals, as well 
as of the productions of nature, plants, marble, sapphire, &c. &c, 
they show no more than that the writer lived in the flourishing time 
of the Jewish state, near that of Solomon. The analogies of lan- 
guage between Proverbs and Canticles 1 , are resolvable in some 
cases into imitation, the former being the original source ; in others, 
they are merely accidental, such as might happen under any cir- 
cumstances. 

At what time after Solomon the poem was written cannot be 
exactly determined; for none will venture to affirm now, with Dr. Pye 
Smith, that it was written by some one during the reign of that 
monarch, though not by himself. The fact that sixty and eighty wives 
and concubines are mentioned in vi. 8. is no indication of its being 
written after Solomon had begun to multiply wives, but before he 
had proceeded to the length mentioned in the history (1 Kings xi. 3.). 2 
Poetical and round numbers are used indefinitely. We believe that 
the composition belongs to the time immediately succeeding Solomon's. 
The descriptions of himself, and of what was in his day, are fresh 
and life-like ; as though they proceeded from eye-witnesses, or from 
such as conversed with eye-witnesses. The tower of David is men- 
tioned, as though it still had a garrison; Tirza flourishes, being 
spoken of even before Jerusalem ; and the tower of Lebanon, which 
looked towards Damascus, is a prominent object in the landscape. 
The language too is such as belongs to the Solomonic period ; the 
Aramaisms by which some have brought it down till after the capti- 
vity being resolvable into the highly j>oetic character of the work ; or 
being capable of parallelism in old pieces like the song of Deborah. 
There is nothing in them to show that they belong to the later and 
degenerate time of the language ; especially if they belong to 
northern Palestine, as Ewald and Hitzig think. 

The uniform insertion of the yod in all copies, in spelling the name 
of David, which induced Kennicott 3 to bring down the date far later 
than Solomon, is of no consequence, because it occurs but once 
(iv. 4.), and is also found in Amos and Hosea (Amos vi. 5., ix. 11. ; 
Hosea iii. 5.). 

The true explanation of all the peculiarities of diction, which have 
been adduced in favour of a late composition, is the northern birth- 
place of the poem. The author probably belonged to the kingdom of 
Israel. Of Judah he could scarcely have been a member, not only 
on account of the subject, but also the absence of the name of 
Jehovah and similar phenomena ; which one in the neighbourhood of 
the splendid temple with its numerous priests and imposing ritual, 

1 See a list of these in Keil's Einleitung, p. 4 23. 

2 See Smith in the Congregational Magazine for 1837, pp. 416, 417. 

3 First Dissertation on the State of the Printed Text, pp. 21, 22. 

3 F 4 



808 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

would scarcely have exhibited. The mention of Tirza before Jeru- 
salem favours the same conclusion. Everything points to a time soon 
after Solomon, and to an inhabitant of northern Palestine. Ac- 
cordingly, Hitzig cannot be far from the truth, when he dates the 
work twenty-five to thirty years after the death of Solomon, 950— 
946 b. c. 1 

Various questions have been agitated respecting this book, which 
appear to us unnecessary. They have been at least improperly discussed. 
Thus the divine authority of the book has been called in question by 
some, and defended by others. In the divine authority is implied the 
inspiration of the work, or rather of its writer. Supposing the propriety 
of introducing such matters in connection with the Song of Solomon, 
which we can scarcely do, the mode in which they have been treated 
appears to us irrelevant and unsuitable. Thus, in favour of the divine 
authority evidence is adduced to show that it is the authentic pro- 
duction of Solomon — evidence external and internal. But this has 
nothing to do with the point in question. The divine authority, as it 
is called, is unaffected by the fact of Solomon or another being the 
writer. Whether the royal son of David composed it, or an un- 
known author, is of no consequence ; provided it formed one of the 
canonical books of the Old Testament, and was always there from 
the completion of the canon. Doubtless it was so. It was not added 
after the canon was closed, either surreptitiously or openly ; on the 
contrary, it was received with the rest of the Hagiographa and always 
acknowledged as one of that collection. There is not the shadow of 
evidence in favour of its having been intruded into the collection of 
Old Testament writings, at any time subsequent to that in which the 
canon was completed, either in the period antecedent to the coming 
of Christ, or at any time after. It was taken by the ancient Jews, 
and inserted like any other of the Hagiographa; and there it has 
retained its place ever since, having come down to us through the 
hands of the Jews, who watched over their holy books ; as well as of 
the ancient Christians, who preserved both the Hebrew and Greek 
Scriptures uncorrupted. 

From these remarks it will be seen, that we attach no weight to 
the attempts which have been made to shake the credit of the canon- 
ical position occupied by the Song of Solomon. 

Another question which has been mixed up in part with the last, 
respects the inspiration of the book, i. e. of the person who wrote it. 
Very improperly, as we conceive, has this been associated with, or made 
to depend upon, the view taken of the nature of the poem. If any 
think it to be a poem whose subject is chaste human love, they ought 
not on that account to deny that it proceeded from an inspired man. 
Neither should the advocates of its allegorical character conceive that 
they alone take the view of it which is consistent with divine inspi- 
ration. Such as consider it an inspired book need not necessarily regard 
it as a sacred allegory ; such as look upon it as an amatory effusion, 
need not necessarily affirm it to be uninspired. Misconception and 

Vorbcmerkungcn, u. s. w. p. 11. 



General Observations on the Prophets. S09 

confusion have arisen from insisting upon one or other of these two 
positions. With such sentiments, it appears to us irrelevant to 
adduce as an argument for the divine authority of the poem, that 
" when spiritually interpreted it contains nothing but what is in 
perfect agreement with the other books of Scripture." : As little 
weight should be attached to the argument against the divine autho- 
rity " that there is no sufficient ground for an allegorical interpre- 
tation of the book." 2 

Those critics who have investigated the nature and contents of the 
book in the light of canonical authority and inspiration appear to us 
to entertain very inadequate notions of what such important words 
imply. They attach incorrect ideas to them, at least in part ; and 
have therefore misapprehended the entire question. It would have 
been far better to examine the book apart from them. Canonical 
authority and inspiration are topics which should be discussed by 
themselves, on a wider basis than that supplied by the Song of 
Solomon. Of one thing we feel convinced, that some better evidence 
than any which has yet been adduced, of the position, that " the 
Song of Solomon is not a part of the Holy Scriptures written by 
inspiration," must be presented, before we allow the book to be 
condemned. 



CHAP. XVII. 

GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON THE PROPHETS. 

The theology of the Old Testament is divided by Oebler 3 into three 
parts, viz., Mosaism, Prophetism, and Hebraism ; and we have now 
to illustrate the second. 

The most usual appellation of a prophet was K^Jj i. e. one inspired 
of God for a definite purpose, and speaking out of such inspiration. 
Another name is n^'i, seer. The latter was the older name, as we 
learn from 1 Sam. ix. 9. It is probable that the title ^33 was first 
used in the schools of the prophets, having been introduced there by 
Samuel himself for the sake of distinction, since the seers in Israel 
till Samuel were mostly common soothsayers who assumed to them- 
selves an insight into futurity. Still the old name was afterwards 
retained, especially in solemn diction. A third appellation is nj'n, 
which is synonymous with the preceding one, all the difference being 
that it is more poetical. In point of meaning it is used interchange- 
ably with n^""i; and both with W23, in 1 Chron. xxix. 29. So far as 
the vision of the prophets was directed to the people's safety they are 
often called icatchmen, D^V, DH!?B\ They are also called messengers 
of Jehovah (rvjn* *3*$&), and men of God (D*ij^ *#38). 

It has been asserted by some, as by Ewald 4 and Havernick 5 , that the 
word K*33 has the meaning of speaker, Sprecher. Accordingly it is active 

1 Congregational Magazine for 1S38, p. 200. 2 Ibid. p. 205. 

8 Prolegomena zur Theologie des alten Testaments, p. 87. et seqq. 

* Pie Prophetcn des Alten Bundes, vol. i. p. 6. 5 Einleit. ii. 2. p. 6. 



810 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

in signification. But Koester 1 and others more correctly argue, that the 
form is passive, from the Arabic root \_^J- equivalent to N 4 23 ; and that 
the analogy of similar words, as well as usage, favour a passive signi- 
fication, one divinely inspired, to which the idea is superadded, who 
speaks forth from such inspiration. The name refers to the divine 
inspiration ; while n&O and ntrt refer to the form in which it was com- 
municated. Watchman relates to one of the practical ends for which 
the prophets received their gift. 

As prophecy is but one of the many forms in which the divine 
Spirit reveals himself among men, it is apparent that the prophets 
were the interpreters of Jehovah's will to the covenant-people. They 
spoke in the name of God by whom they were sent. Their gift 
was not the result of their own powers or reflectiveness ; nor had it 
any connection with evil spirits ; it was the operation of God on their 
minds. Theirs was a clearer insight into the counsels of heaven, a 
higher view of things, than any common man could obtain in an 
ordinary way. Past and present lay before their view. They had 
also glimpses of the future. Animated and moved by the Spirit of 
God, they had a perception which was denied to others — occupying 
as they did a higher platform of spiritual vision. And what they 
saw by virtue of their inspiration, they uttered with a living power 
and elevation fitted to arrest the attention of others- 

It is apparent that in order to be a prophet a man must be pious. 
None but the converted could be fitting instruments of the Deity. 
Hence we read in the second Epistle of Peter (i. 21.) holy men of 
God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. Sometimes the 
Deity may employ bad men as organs for the utterance of his will, 
such as Balaam ; but they are exceptional cases. 

Generally speaking, every one was a prophet to whom God revealed 
his mind. In this wide sense there were prophets from the commence- 
ment of man's history. With Adam and his wife the Deity is repre- 
sented as living in confidential and near intercourse, till they fell. 
They were therefore at least the recipients of prophecy; and in an ex- 
tended sense Adam may be called a prophet. Lamech's poem is the 
first recorded prophecy uttered by men. (Gen. iv. 24.) Noah was 
also a prophet, not merely because Jehovah communicated his will to 
him, but because he himself prophesied. (Gen. ix. 25.) Still more 
conspicuous was Abraham, who is called the friend of God, and is the 
first person who is expressly styled a nabi or prophet. Isaac too, to 
whom God appeared once when he was awake, and once in the night, 
littered a prophecy respecting his sons immediately before death. 
So also did Jacob, whose remarkable blessings, pronounced just be- 
fore his decease, were literal prophecies. Joseph, in like manner, 
had notable dreams communicating supernaturally facts. Moses 
was a prophet. It is true indeed that he is never expressly styled 
prophet in the Pentateuch ; but the words in Deuteronomy xxxiv. 
10, " and there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, 

Die Propheten des alten und neucn Testaments, p. 183. et seqq. 



General Observations on the Prophets. 811 

whom the Lord knew face to face," warrant the opinion that he was an 
illustrious and peculiarly privileged one. Accordingly he wrought 
many signs and wonders before a whole nation. Hosea calls him the 
prophet, without naming him. (xii. 13.) Miriam insinuates that she 
had the gift of prophecy. (Num. xii. 2.) So also does Aaron in the 
same place, The seventy elders were prophets. (Num. xi. 16, 17. 
24 — 30.) Balaam uttered peculiar prophecies. In the history of 
prophecy thus far we see a gradual development. As our first parents 
lived in near relationship to the Deity in the garden, there was no 
need of prophets. But when mankind multiplied, and departed 
from the true God, rendering themselves unworthy instruments to 
whom and through whom he should communicate his counsels, it was 
necessary that certain pious men should give utterance to the divine 
revelations they received, lest the knowledge of God should be lost 
among the people. Such men were virtually prophets, though they 
had no specific commission as such. The most conspicuous of the 
patriarchs, who together are called prophets in Psal. cv. (15th 
verse), is Abraham, with whom God deigned to hold frequent inter- 
course, and to whom the object of all prophecy was revealed. Moses 
is more illustrious still ; because he was the mediator between God 
and man in receiving the law, by which the people became the 
covenant-people of the Most High. He is the greatest of prophets, 
standing in some respects above them all. By him it was promised 
that God should send prophets to the people ; and a special law 
secured for them authority and safety. (Deut, xviii. 15 — 22.) But 
the succession of the particular prophets to whom Moses referred, 
those in whom the prophetic gift was attached to the prophetic office, 
did not begin immediately after him. For a length of time his 
greatness overshadowed the future ; so that very few ambassadors of 
God appeared in the nation till the time of Saul, In a few instances 
men of God called attention to the law ; and Joshua, Gideon, and 
Jephthah, were favoured with some revelations ; but they are feeble 
images of the prophet. During the times of Joshua and the Judges, 
only some were susceptible of the divine spirit ; for the nation was in 
a state of disorder. 1 Deborah is called a prophetess. An anonymous 
prophet is spoken of in Judges vi. 8 — 10. ; and another declares the 
divine judgment coming on Eli. (1 Sam. ii. 27 — 36.) It is not so clear 
as Hengstenberg imagines 2 , that in the age of the Judges prophecy 
exerted a powerful influence. The instances in which it existed were 
scattered and comparatively rare. Though prophets then operated 
influentially, they were scarcely sufficient to penetrate or affect 
extensively the mass of the people. But in the period reaching 
from Samuel to Malachi, we first find prophets in the full signifi- 
cation of the term — men who exercised the gift as their peculiar 
calling. Here also we meet with a special institute, the so-called 
schools of the prophets, where the gift was cultivated by preparation 
and study. The inspired ambassadors of God now appeared in 
greater numbers, and with more definite functions. The causes of 

1 See Koester, p. 38. " See the article Prophecy in Kitto's Cyclopaedia. 



812 Introduction to the Old Testament 

this difference may be various. The spirit of the people generally 
may have been more susceptible of such inspiration, when they had 
emerged out of their rude, unsettled state, and become conscious of their 
unity as a covenant-people. But the relations of the times were the 
chief cause. Kings had been newly appointed. This was an inno- 
vation on the old republican theocracy. Despotic as these monarch s 
were by disposition, they could ill brook the restraints of the law, or 
adapt their measures to its requirements. Hence prophets were 
needful to supplement their deficiencies, to check their despotism, 
and keep before their view a monotheistic religion which they were 
slow to follow. This order of men interfered with all the more 
important affairs of the state ; threatened the rulers with judgments 
when they acted unfaithfully towards the covenant-God, blamed 
them when they did wrong, and pointed to a distant and prosperous 
future when the time swere specially dark. They were both reli- 
gious teachers and active politicians. Interfering as they did with 
public measures in the nation, always with proper motives and for 
the true welfare of the people, they were soimd politicians. And as 
the nation's outward prosperity was intimately connected with the 
observance of God's worship, they could not but mix up religion 
with their politics. Indeed the two things were inseparable. 1 

Prophecy has a close relation to the law. The latter, with its 
commands and prohibitions, requires absolute and unlimited subjec- 
tion of the whole man to the revealed will of God, in all spheres and 
relations of life ; so that he may be brought to feel his need of 
redemption, from a consciousness of inability to render perfect obe- 
dience to the divine commands. In this way the legal institute of 
the Old Testament was the schoolmaster, or rather the irauhayayoi, 
the slave who conducts a child to the house of the schoolmaster, to lead 
to Christ. But in order to do this service effectually, prophecy was 
superadded, not merely as a promise of divine grace and future re- 
demption, but an incipient realisation of the predicted communion of 
God with his people. The law could not renew the heart, nor excite 
love to God in the soul ; prophecy prepared the way for this con- 
summation. In itself too it presented a union of the divine and 
human — an actual communion with the Deity, which, while it pointed 
to the consummation of the divine kingdom in the hearts of men, 
already presented a true pledge of its future realisation. The pro- 
phets always take their stand upon the law. They do not place 
themselves above it, as though it ceased to be to themselves a rule 
demanding obedience. They neither add to nor take from it. They 
explain its requirements and enforce its authority. They bring out 
its spirit by opening up a higher apprehension of its import. Un- 
folding its genuine acceptation, they anticipate to a certain text the 
proper and full significancy, viz. that obedience to the will of God is 
the true sacrifice well pleasing in His sight; and so prepare for the 
time when the whole covenant-people should be penetrated with the 
divine spirit as willing instruments of the Most High. In thus inter- 
preting the law, they manifest its spirit, and therefore announce the 
1 Sec Koester, p. 44. 



General Observations on the Prophets. 813 

scheme of salvation, and future development of the divine kingdom. 
The main business of the prophets therefore was to interpret and 
enforce the law of God, And that a people like the Jews needed to 
be continually called to a sense of its claims, the history sufficiently 
shows. As far as relates to the moral law the prophets might well 
enforce its authority, because it is immutable. And as to the cere- 
monial law, they could sometimes ascend above its forms to its spirit 
— to the times when a new covenant should be made with the house 
of Israel and the house of Judah — external sacrifices giving way to 
the true sacrifice of the heart and life which God requires. But 
though they had occasional glimpses of the future, when the Mosaic 
sacrifices should cease, they never thought of altering them, or of 
tolerating their non-observance. Those sacrifices were a necessary 
discipline, preparing the people for that which they foreshadowed. 
But the prophets were sometimes enabled to get beyond the form to 
the underlying substance, and so to denounce undue reliance on 
ritual observances as outwardly efficacious, glancing forward to the 
period when the moral law should be inscribed on the heart as a sub- 
jective rule of conduct, the ceremonial being done away by virtue of 
one great offering in which Messiah should show the moral power 
of self-sacrifice to God. In every case, the prophets adhered to the 
law generally, because they insisted upon its spirit, and tried to pre- 
serve that in living activity within the covenant-people. 

The Mosaic theocracy is built upon two fundamental principles, 
which are both religious and political. Accordingly the entire ministry 
of the prophets consisted in nothing else than an application and 
development of these maxims in relation to the wants of the period. 
The first was, that Jehovah had chosen Israel for his peculiar people, 
implying that He had been chosen as their king. The second was, 
that this divine King rewards and punishes according to the obedience 
or disobedience of his subjects ; prosperity and adversity following 
the one and the other respectively. In the application of these 
maxims to politics, the prophets constantly inculcated faithfulness to 
God and his law as the only safety of their country. Such was their 
simple announcement — the burden of all their declarations to the 
rulers and princes of the nation. There is also a political principle 
in the prohibition of an attachment to foreign things, or alliance with 
foreign nations. Their moral and religious maxims naturally stand 
in close connection with the political ones. Here they deal with the 
law of Moses, to which they were bound, according to Deut. xviii. 18., 
and of which they were alike the interpreters and guardians. And 
as a germ of development lies in the Mosaic monotheism, which must 
exhibit its energy as soon as the nation was penetrated with a higher 
spiritual life, the prophets were the means of unfolding it. They 
already began to go beyond the letter and seize upon the spirit of 
the law. All defended monotheism as the fundamental law of the 
theocracy. They also corrected the current errors of a common an- 
thropomorphism : thus when the repentance of God was mentioned, 
it was added, " he is not a man that he should repent." His wrath is 
not a human passion. (Hos. xi. 9. ; Micah ii. 7.) The prophets also 



814 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

began to develop the germ of a belief in immortality, as is shown by 
Isa. xxvi. 19.; Ezek. xxxvii. 3.; Dan. xii. 2. They also ennobled 
the doctrine of a virtuous life by referring the common retribution- 
theory to higher motives. (Isa. viii. 20.) Their ethics were most 
favourably manifested in the inculcation of the sentiment, obedience 
is better than sacrifice. (Hos. vi. 6.) So Joel addresses the people, 
" Rend your heart, and not your garments." (ii. 13.) Of the same 
import is Micah vi. 6 — 8. This leads us to see the value they at- 
tached to the ceremonial law. They did not set aside sacrifices as 
such, but rather the abuse of their observance, consisting in a per- 
formance of them as a mere external thing. Some passages which 
seem to imply censure of the law, such as Isa. i. 13, 14.; Amos v. 
25. ; Isa. xliii. 22 — 24. ; Jer. vii. 22. ; Ezek. xx. 25., do not bear 
this sense when properly understood. The last prophets certainly 
speak of the removal of the visible theocracy belonging to one people. 
Jeremiah does so in xxxi. 31. Hence they had a premonition of the 
fact that Judaism was merely a temporary institute. 1 

As true patriots the prophets not only censured and threatened, but 
comforted the people. They pointed to a future time of prosperity 
and peace. The most powerful means which they employed for this 
end were Messianic prophecies. Present distress awakened a longing 
for something better ; and that longing was linked to a certain per- 
son who was to bring deliverance and redemption to the people of 
God. The expectation of Messiah was feeble and faint at the com- 
mencement of the human history. Nor did it appear with any pro- 
minence till the period of the prophets, when it was first clearly 
announced and gradually increased in definiteness as the time rolled 
on. These Messianic prophecies are general and ideal. The out- 
lines are broad and seldom specific. All the prophets place the 
manifestation of Messiah in the last period of the world's history ; 
the oldest making the political aspect of the ideal more prominent ; 
the younger, the moral and religious aspect. The former represent 
him as the author of Israel's external splendour ; the latter regard 
him as a prophet bringing the knowledge of God to all the heathen. 
The book of Daniel describes his person more minutely than any 
other prophetic work. 

We must now speak of the mode in which these inspired mes- 
sengers received their prophetic material, internally and externally ; 
and afterwards of the way in which they uttered it, orally or in 
writing. The susceptibility of prophecy was essentially an internal 
thing. It was an inspiration or spiritual condition of the mind. Yet 
it was attached to something external, being connected with pre- 
paratory circumstances and a peculiar manner of life. 

1. The prophetic gift was not an enduring or perpetual possession. 
Prophecy, considered as a state of mind, was not constant. It was 
temporary and transient, consisting in single inspiratiojis, so to speak, 
not a long-continued one. Thus the seventy-two elders who assisted 
Moses prophesied but once. The same was the case with Saul 
among the prophets. Even Moses, the exemplar of all the prophets, 

1 Comp. Kocstcr, p. 230. et seqq. 



General Observations on the Prophets. 815 

had often to wait for a divine communication before he knew what 
to do. Thus prophecy was not at the disposal of those favoured with 
it, whenever they pleased. 

The prophets possessed the capacity to receive the divine Spirit 
by a clear intellect and moral earnestness, or " wisdom and forti- 
tude," as they are called in the Talmud l ; but these qualifications 
themselves are ascribed to the Spirit's power. Hence we must con- 
ceive of them as qualified by a certain state of mind, and then as 
receiving the gift of prophecy. Prayer and pious meditation were 
means by which they prepared themselves for obtaining inspiration. 

Among the external preparations to which prophecy was more or 
less attached may be mentioned association with bodies of prophets, 
where music and poetry were employed as a means of exciting the 
higher emotions of the soul. The object for which these confedera- 
tions existed was to assist the contemplation of divine things, and to 
promote theocratic politics. The law was the subject of study. 
From such schools issued hundreds of men who gave a mighty im- 
pulse to the cause of righteousness in the nation. All lived together 
in a kind of league or bond of brotherhood. The pupils who were 
trained by the senior members were called sons of the prophets ; and 
the latter, regarded as spiritual parents, were styled fathers. (2 Kings 
ii.l2.15,vi.21.) These schools, however, did not possess an exclusive 
privilege to prophecy. Every true prophet did not belong to an 
association. Various prophets were apparently independent of such 
schools. And though all the members had the common appellation 
nebiim, many were not prophets. Perhaps the majority were simply 
teachers of the people ; or had nothing more in view than their own 
edification and growth in piety. All the sons of the prophets did 
not become prophets ; and all' the prophets were not brought up in 
schools ; as the example of Amos shows. 

The divine call to the prophetic office was an indispensable thing ; 
and therefore the true prophets were accustomed to rely upon it, in 
order to strengthen their authority. (Amos vii.) Accordingly they 
describe it at length, as Isaiah does in the sixth chapter of his book. 
And though the call may have been an internal thing scenically 
represented by a vision, believers and the prophets themselves 
looked upon it as directly divine. 

"Whether the prophets were inaugurated into their office by unc- 
tion is doubtful. The only particulars which favour anointing are, 
that Jehovah'' s anointed in Psal. cv. 15. is parallel with prophets ; and 
in 1 Kings xix. 16. Elijah is divinely commanded to anoint his suc- 
cessor Elisha. The latter is the only historical example of pro- 
phetic unction ; and appears to be exceptional. All the prophets, 
however, were looked upon as spiritually anointed, because they 
were inspired. Nor does the imposition of hands appear to have 
been practised at the entrance of prophets upon their office. We 
read indeed of Joshua being set apart in that manner and receiving 
the divine Spirit ; but not of the official prophets. Music is men- 
tioned twice among the inspiration-media of the prophets. When 
1 Mfissec. Sanhedrin, as quoted by K. Albo. 



816 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Elisha was asked his advice on a certain occasion, lie caused a 
minstrel to be brought, and as the latter played, the hand of the 
Lord came upon Elisha. But as he belonged to the prophetic asso- 
ciation, and as we read in 1 Sam. x. that those belonging to the 
prophetic schools had psaltery, harp, tabret, and pipe before them as 
they went in procession, this usage may have been peculiar to the 
prophets' schools, since it is not mentioned elsewhere. The em- 
ployment of music must have been intended to attune the mind to 
calmness, allaying evil passions, if such existed ; and to raise it by 
the soft harmony of numbers to the contemplation of the divine. As 
has been well said l , music brings a tone out of the higher worlds 
into the spirit of the hearer. 

The susceptibility of prophecy did not belong exclusively to any 
one sex, age, or condition. Various prophetesses are mentioned in 
the Old Testament — Miriam, Deborah, Hannah mother of Samuel 
(1 Sam. ii.), Huldah (2 Kings xxii. 14.), Noadiah (Neh. vi. 14.). 
Jeremiah was called to the office when he was an inexperienced youth. 
Some w r ere prophets who occupied a distinguished rank in society, 
Moses, David, Isaiah, Daniel ; but Elisha was a ploughman, and 
Amos a herdsman who gathered sycamores. Yet the majority lived 
a poor and toilsome life. Sometimes this was matter of choice, as in 
the prophetic schools where asceticism was practised for the purpose 
of hardening the disciple against rough usage and persecution in the 
future ; and where meditation on divine things w r as favoured by with- 
drawal from earthly cares. Offerings and presents were brought to 
these schools by benevolent individuals (1 Kings xiv. 3.; 2 Kings iv. 1. 
38. 42.); but occasionally the inmates suffered hunger, and went out 
into the fields to gather herbs. Hengstenberg affirms that the offer- 
ings which by the Mosaic law were to be given to the Levites, were 
brought by the pious of the kingdom of Irsael to the schools of the 
prophets, and appeals to 2 Kings iv. 42. ; but this does not support 
the assertion. In solitary and wild places they built their own dwell- 
ings and cut down the timber required. (2 Kings vi. 1. &c.) Their 
apparel was simple and coarse. They wore nothing but the plain 
tunic or undergarment, in which state they are called naked. (1 Sam. 
xix. 24.) Their principals had a mantle as a distinction of office. 
Thus Samuel is represented as covered with a mantle ; and Elijah 
wore a leathern girdle (2 Kings i. 8.). This was imitated by the 
false prophets, as we learn from Zechariah (xiii. 4. &c). The notices 
that remain respecting the manner of life in these training institu- 
tions are scanty, and therefore it is difficult to get a true picture of 
it. They existed at different places, as Rama, Bethel, Gilgal, Jericho, 
(2 Kings ii. and iv. xxii. 14.). The reason why they were dis- 
persed among many cities of Israel lay in the character of the places, 
and the people inhabiting them. They were located where they 
were most needed — where the Israelites most required the admoni- 
tions and reproofs such schools were likely to administer. Samuel, 
Elijah, and Elisha are mentioned as principals of them. Hengsten- 

1 Koester, p. 254. 



General Observations on the Prophets. 817 

berg thinks, that what is recorded of these schools in the kingdom of 
Israel, is not directly applicable to the kingdom of Judah ; and that 
their organisation and regulations were not as settled in the latter as 
in the former. The picture which he draws of them in the kingdom 
of Israel may he true and accurate ; but it is certainly filled up in 
part from his own imagination. 1 

Putting together various notices of the Old Testament respecting 
these schools of the prophets, we get this picture of them, -viz. that 
they were associations of young men who united with the view of pre- 
paring themselves the better to promote religious culture generally, 
and to maintain the theocratic spirit in particular. They lived in 
large companies, in certain places ; and procured subsistence partly 
by the spontaneous productions of the earth, partly by husbandry, by 
keeping cattle, and by the contributions of the pious. Thus, besides 
the exercises adapted to their proper prophetic calling, they pursued 
the usual avocations of life for their support. In both respects they 
were instructed and superintended by the older and more distinguished 
prophets, who either dwelt among them, or visited them in their 
peregrinations. Any one who had an inclination for the prophetic 
office was allowed to enter into these prophet-colonies. Some con- 
tinued there all their lives, as has been inferred from the fact that 
there were married pupils of the prophets ; while some went forth to 
prosecute the work independently. Hence these schools have been 
compared with the Pythagorean league. 2 

Whether such as left still continued to be members of their colleges, 
is uncertain ; though Hengstenberg asserts it, relying, as would 
appear, on the fact related in 2 Kings iv. 1. &c, where the widow of 
a pupil belonging to the schools of the prophets regarded Elisha as 
the person bound to take care of her. Such as married did not leave 
on that account. Hengstenberg incorrectly intimates the contrarj^. 3 

The prophets who laboured independently of these associations also 
lived in a simple and poor style. Lest they should be suspected of 
corruption, and because the false prophets prophesied for money, 
they were obliged to show their contempt for riehes and refuse gifts. 
(1 Kings xiii. 8. ; 2 Kings v. 16.) Isaiah wore sackcloth, the dress 
of mourning. (Isa. xx. 2.) Daniel and his companions preferred to* 
live on water and vegetables. (Dan. i. 8. 12.) Very often; they had 
to suffer for their faithful speaking and conduct. They were refused 
the liberty of prophesying (Amos ii. 12.; Isa. xxx. 10.); were 
mocked and despised (Isa. xxviii. 9.; Ezek. xxxiii. 31. &c). Kings, 
priests, and princes hated them, so that they were occasionally com- 
pelled to suffer hunger (1 Kings xix. 4.); to live in caves upon bread 
and w 7 ater (1 Kings xviii. 13.); and to endure the rigours of impri- 
sonment (Jer. xxxvii. 13., xxxviii. 4.). Kings sent persons to assassi- 
nate them (2 Kings vi. 32.); and the people stoned them. Nor were 
these outward injuries and misfortunes all they had to undergo. In 
consequence of their sympathy with the people they were exceedingly 

1 Article Prophecy in Kitto's Cyclopaedia. 

2 See Tennemarm's Geschichte der Philosophic, vol i. p. 89. et seqq. 

3 Comp. Knobel's Prophetismus, vol. ii. § 3. 
VOL II. 3 G 



818 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

grieved in announcing fearful judgments impending. (Isa. xv. 5., 
xvi. 9. ; Hab. iii. 16.) But, however painful the task, they were 
impelled to speak out ; and were sometimes comforted in their sorrow 
by Jehovah himself. 

Generally speaking, it was when asked by their fellow-country- 
men that they delivered their prophecies as answers. Such consult- 
ation is called asking the Lord (Isa. lviii. 2. ; 1 Sam. xxii. 13.); a 
fact proving that their answers were regarded as revelations of the 
Almighty will, and not private opinions. When they addressed the 
people without their advice being asked, circumstances demanded 
that they should speak. Persons of distinction commonly sent mes- 
sengers to them for counsel (Isa. xxxvii. 2.) ; or the prophets sent 
their replies by messengers (2 Kings v. 10.). When inwardly 
prompted to deliver oracles to the people, they stood forward in 
public places where their appearance might expose them to general 
indignation ; but where at the same time their messages would be 
more readily communicated to all. In Jerusalem, where they were 
most numerous, they usually chose the temple. Their replies were 
mostly couched in short, pithy words, uttered by a strong impulse 
from within, and in a manner fitted to make an impression. Thus 
Moses says to Pharaoh, " Let my people go, that they may hold a 
feast unto me in the wilderness." (Exod. v. 1.) After Nathan had 
related his parable to David, he adds, " Thou art the man." (2 Sam. 
xii. 7.) Sometimes there are dialogues between prophets and their 
opponents, as in 1 Kings xxi. 17., between Elijah and Ahab; in 
xxii. 24., between Zedekiah and Micah; in 2 Kings vi. 32., between 
Elisha and Jehoram ;in Amosvii.lO,&c between Amos and Amaziah; 
in Isa. vii., between Isaiah and Ahaz; in Jer. xxviii., between Jere- 
miah and the false prophet Hananiah, 1 After prophecies began to be 
written, those orally delivered became longer. There is good reason 
for believing that they spoke with considerable gesticulation, in an 
impassioned and solemn tone. Inspired men delivering messages so 
weighty — orientals too, possessing the characteristic fire which distin- 
guishes the east from the west, — their voice, manner, and gestures 
bore the outward impress of an irresistible impulse of the spirit within. 
Hence they were often looked upon as raving madmen. In Hos. 
viii. 1., Jehovah commands the prophet, " Set the trumpet to thy 
mouth," i. e., let thy voice resound in loud and thrilling tones. Comp. 
also Isa. xl. 9., lviii. 1. But the most significant thing within the 
range of outward gesticulation was some symbol accompanying what 
was said for the purpose of making more palpable the object of 
address, and exciting the attention of the hearers. We refer to 
didactic signs or emblematic representations not falling under the head 
of the miraculous. Thus Samuel says to Saul, " Behold that which 
is left ! set it before thee, and eat." (1 Sam. ix. 24.) When the 
same king afterwards laid hold upon the skirt of the prophet's mantle, 
and rent it, the latter employed it as symbolic : " The Lord hath rent 
the kingdom of Israel from thee this day." (1 Sam. xv. 27, 28.) In 

1 See Koester, p. 258. et seqq. 



General Observations on the Prophets. 819 

like manner, Ahijah divides Jeroboam's mantle into ten pieces, as a 
symbol of the ten tribes. (1 Kings xi. 29&o. ) The dying Elisha com- 
manded Joash, first to shoot an arrow out of the window, and then to 
smite upon the ground with the bundle of arrows, as a symbol of his 
conquering the Assyrians. Instead of a real, outward thing, the 
symbol sometimes consisted of a fictitious narrative, fable, or parable, 
as in the case of Jotham (Jud. ix.), Nathan (2 Sam. xii.), and the 
woman of Tekoah (2 Sam. xiv.). 1 

The earliest trace of prophetic writing is that of Moses (Deut. 
xxxi. 24.), who committed to rolls or books, not only laws, but pro- 
phecies. The next is a notice of Samuel, Gad, and Nathan having 
composed the history of David. An epistle from Elijah after his 
death, is said by the writer of Chronicles 2 to have come to Jehoram. 
(2 Chron. xxi. 12.) After Moses's, no written prophecies remain 
older than 800 b. c, when Joel, Amos, and Hosea placed theirs on 
record. Nearly 300 years had elapsed since the foundation of the 
prophet-schools by Samuel ; yet nothing earlier survives. Hence the 
living word must have been chiefly employed for that period of time. 
After Elijah and Elisha had carried prophetic activity to its highest 
practical point, showing what the living ministry of such men could 
effect, and when the two kingdoms were verging towards decay, 
written oracles were extensively applied. This could not have taken 
place without an important reason, however imperfectly we may now 
apprehend it. Perhaps oral teaching had lost some of its efficacy 
through custom ; as the common soon begins to be less attended to. 
The present being unprosperous and gloomy, the prophets opened 
up to the pious of the nation a store of consolation in the future, in 
the contemplation of which the spirit might find relief. Coming 
events were more momentous in their issues, and therefore required 
to be chronicled. The Messianic age, as it drew nearer, needed greater 
prominence, and corresponding treatment, to keep it more steadily 
before the eye of the people. From about 800 b. c, therefore, and 
onwards, we find an uninterrupted series of written prophecies, each 
having relation more or less to the preceding. Whether the pro- 
phetic schools gave rise to written oracles now lost, we cannot assert. 
It is uncertain whether some prophetic psalms were composed by 
members of them. More probable is it that in these schools annals, 
biographies, and histories were written, which served as materials to 
the compilers of the books of Samuel and the Kings. 

It is conjectured by Koester 3 , that the prophets wrote at first short, 
pregnant words — themes, as it were, for oral discourses — on tablets 
which they put up in public. Calvin and Carpzov, entertaining a 
similar view, thought of the contents of these tables as a sort of .pro- 
gramme fastened to the doors of the temple. References to tables 
are found in Isaiah and Habakkuk ; the former having written a signi- 
ficant name, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, on a smooth tablet (Isa. viii. L); 
the latter having been commanded to write a vision and make it plain 

1 See Koester, p. 261. et seqq. 2 See Winer's Realworterbuch, vol. i. p. 318. 

3 Koester, pp. 265, 266. 



820 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

upon tables, in characters so large as to be read at a glance by the 
hasty passer. 

When addresses delivered orally were committed to writting, we 
do not suppose that they were literally and exactly noted down. They 
were revised, enlarged, and improved. Some were written that had 
not been previously spoken; such as the oracles of Joel, Nahum, 
and Habakkuk. Probably most of Ezekiel's were promulgated 
merely in writing. The extended description of the temple in the 
concluding chapters was not delivered orally. Sometimes they them- 
selves made a collection of their writings, as was the case with Joel 
and Habakkuk ; probably too with Hosea and Ezekiel. Sometimes, 
however, posterity collected their oracles, which had been left in sepa- 
rate parts. A prophetic book or collection of oracles was termed a 
book of Jehovah, nin! "iBp. (Isa. xxxiv. 16.) Jeremiah dictated his 
prophecies to Baruch, who wrote them down in a roll; and when 
Jehoiakim ordered it to be burnt, he dictated them anew. (Jer. 
xxxvi.) When their contents were mysterious at the time, they 
were ordered to be sealed up. (Dan. xii. 4.) 

On the return from the Babylonish captivity there was an existing 
literature of eaiiier prophets, which was read and appealed to. To it 
new oracles were appended, (Isa. xlhi. 12. 18.) Now too the collection 
of the prophets was gradually completed. To the book of the 
three greater prophets the book of the twelve minor ones was annexed, 
arranged symmetrically, as has been supposed, in four trilogies, viz. 
Hosea, Joel, Amos; Obadiah, Jonah, Micah; Nahum, Habakkuk, 
Zephaniah ; Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. 

In regard to the form of prophecies, it was usual for these inspired 
men to illustrate the subject somewhat copiously; beginning with 
censure, and concluding with hopes of better, i. e. Messianic times. 
Sometimes the address took the shape of a prayer. (Isa. xxv.) Some- 
times it was a lyrical ode. (Isa. xxix.) But these are exceptions to 
the general rule. A proper address to the hearers was the ordinary 
method, issued mostly in Jehovah's name, rarely in the prophet's 
own, sometimes in both together. (Isa. i. 2, 3.) The principal media 
through which the prophetic materials were communicated are the 
mashal, dreams, visions, and symbolical actions. 

1 . By the first we mean every kind of allegory, pure or mixed, 
such as fables, apologues, parables, personifications; examples of which 
are seen in Ezek. xvii., Isa. v., Zech. xi., Ezek. xxiii., Hosea. ii. 
This mashal or allegorical dress is simpler and more natural in the 
older prophets ; in the later ones more obscure and far-fetched, as in 
Ezekiel. 1 

2. Dreams first appear as prophetic costume in the post-exile times. 
Thus Daniel narrates a dream (vii. 2, 3.). 

3. Visions were commonly used by the prophets, where the matter 
was such as language could not describe in proper words. Amos 
was the first who saw future things of earth, depending on heavenly 
causes, in vision, in such a manner as that Jehovah himself is said to 

1 See Koester, p. 271. 



General Observations on the Prohets. 821 

have shown them to him. Isaiah has but one vision, and that con- 
nected with his calling to the prophetic office ; while Hosea, Nahum, 
and Zephaniah have none. Two occur in Jeremiah (i. ii. and xxiv.). 
Ezekiel has many visions, descriptive of the divine majesty and the 
course of divine providence in the future. Those in Zechariah and 
Daniel are more like dreams, and bear the stamp of artificiality. 

A question has been proposed respecting the objectivity or subjec- 
tivity of these visions. In other words, it has been inquired whether 
they were all outwardly real and true, or whether their reality and 
truth were only internal. The latter, for various reasons, appears to 
us the correct view. Images of things superhuman and spiritual 
were presented to the minds of the prophets, who believed that they 
were subjectively real and present, in some cases. In other cases such 
images were nothing but conceptions to which the prophets gave this 
symbolic dress. Thus the vision painted by Isaiah of a live coal being 
laid upon his mouth, and so taking away his sin, is simply employed 
by the prophet as a way of teaching the necessity of purity to the 
ambassador of God. He could not believe that this was an actual 
and real thing. Nor do we suppose that images of a live coal and 
altar were set before his inward eye in a unique picture. In like 
manner, Jeremiah seeing the rod of almond-tree and seething-pot, 
is merely the symbolic dress of an idea. Here the imagination of the 
inspired prophet bodied forth a vision, in order to put forward in a 
palpable light the conceptions suggested to his mind. We do not 
believe, with many, that such visions were made to the prophets in a 
trance or ecstasy. Perhaps their mood of inspiration was then higher 
and their spirit more excited : but when those moments were past, 
and in cool reflection they began to describe the vision in writing, 
they must have been conscious of nothing more than a mental phan- 
tasmagoria. They could not have seen God himself, for he is 
invisible ; neither could they have believed that they saw him : they 
merely saw his angel, i. e. his representative, unreal and shadowy. 
Had they seen what was real and actual, they would have depicted 
it outwardly as a sensuous object, which would have been contrary 
to the command in the decalogue (Exod. xx. 4.). 1 But we shall 
allude to this point again. 

Among the peculiarities of prophetic announcement are sym- 
bolical actions which the prophets are said to have performed. The 
question has been differently answered, whether they were actual 
and historical ; or merely internal, confined to the minds of the 
prophets themselves. The latter opinion is the correct one, for 
various reasons. 

1. Some of them were impossible. Thus Ezekiel was commanded 
to lie on his left side 390 days, and 40 days on the right side. He 
must not turn from the one to the other. Jeremiah was ordered to 
take a wine-cup, and send it to all the nations to drink of it. Ac- 
cordingly he took it to the kings of Egypt, Arabia, Persia, Media, 
&c. &c, "and all the kings of the north far and near. v (Jer. xxv. 15. 

1 Comp. Kocster, pp. 274, 275. 
3 G 3 



822 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

&c). Ezekiel was commanded to take the roll of a book and eat it. 
(Ezek. ii. 9., iii. 2, 3.) 

2. Others contain what is unworthy of Deity, or inconsistent with 
decency and propriety. They must therefore be regarded as the 
mere dress or costume of prophecy. Thus Hosea was commanded to 
take a wife of whoredoms ; and accordingly he took Gonier, by whom 
he had several children, (chap. i.). The object of this was to depict 
the idolatrous disposition of the nation. If this were a real fact, then 
was adultery commanded of God for the purpose of enforcing the 
truth that Israel was faithless to Jehovah. Hengstenberg has well 
shown that the action was not historical, but merely symbolical and 
mental. Ezekiel was commanded to bake with man's dung the bread 
he ate while lying on his side for a long time. 

3. In some the means bear no proper relation to the end. The 
two do hot correspond. Thus Jeremiah was directed to put a linen 
girdle on his loins, to go to the Euphrates, and hide the girdle there 
in a hole of the rock. Accordingly he does so, returns from the long 
journey, and after many days is ordered to take the girdle from its 
place. But the girdle was found to be good for nothing. (Jer. xiii. 
1 — 10.) This was done to prefigure the people's destruction. It is 
mere fiction. Jeremiah was also ordered to send bonds and yokes to 
all the neighbouring kings, to show their subjugation, (xxvii. 1. &c.) 
Ezekiel was directed to take a sharp knife and cut off the hair upon 
his head, then divide it into three parts and destroy them by fire, 
sword, and dispersion, preserving but a few hairs to bind in his 
skirts, &c. (v.) 

4. Some are expressly represented as vision or internal phenomena. 
Thus in relation in Ezek. viii. — xi. the prophet says that he was 
transported in spirit. " We must remember," says John Smith, " that 
the prophetical scene or stage upon which all apparitions were made 
to the prophet, was his imagination ; and that there all those things 
which God would have revealed unto him were acted over sym- 
bolically, as in a masque, in which divers persons are brought in, 
amongst which the prophet himself bears a part : and therefore he, 
according to the exigency of this dramatical apparatus, must, as the 
other actors, perform his part, sometimes by speaking and reciting 
things done, propounding questions, sometimes by acting that part 
Avhich in the drama he was appointed to act by some others ; and so, 
not only by speaking, but by gestures and actions, come in, in his 
due place, among the rest ; as it is in our ordinary dreams, to use 
Maimonides' expression of it. And therefore it is no wonder to hear 
of those things done which indeed have no historical or real verity ; 
the scope of all being to represent something strongly to the prophet's 
understanding, and sufficiently to inform it in the substance of those 
things in which he was to instruct that people to whom he was sent. 
And so sometimes we have only the intelligible matter of prophecies 
delivered to us nakedly, without the imaginary ceremonies or solem- 
nities. And as this notion of those actions of the prophets that are in- 
terweaved with their prophecies is most genuine and agreeable to the 



General Observations on the Prophets. 823 

general nature of prophecy, so we shall further clear and confirm it 
in some particulars." l The same view is given by Maimonicles. 

5. Some were probably historical facts. All such as are not im- 
possible, or unsuitable as means to the end proposed, or unworthy of 
the Deity, or inconsistent with decorum, or expressly related as 
internal not external facts, may be classed among the really done. 
Thus Isaiah gives significant names to his children (vii. viii.). Jere- 
miah is ordered not to marry and beget children (xvi. 1. &c). 
Ezekiel is commanded not to mourn for the death of his wife 
(xxiv. 15.). Zechariah is ordered to take silver and gold and make 
a double crown for the high priest (vi. 11.). 

Jeremiah and Ezekiel make most use of symbols. They belonged 
to the priestly line ; and as the Jewish worship was distinguished by 
its symbolical rites, they naturally employed symbols more frequently 
than other prophets. 

There were many false as well as true prophets. These promised 
prosperity without repentance, and preached peace without incul- 
cating purity. As the false prophets did much mischief among 
the Jewish people, leading them away from God and counteracting 
the salutary influence of the true, it was important that the Is- 
raelites should distinguish the one from the other. The criteria of 
genuine prophecy are laid down in the Mosaic law ; and all the pro- 
phets appeal to them. (Deut. xiii. 1 — 5., xviii. 20 — 22.) What are 
they ? 

1. The most usual thing connected with the manifestation of a 
prophet was a sign or ivonder (T\18 „or riS'lD), as expressed in Deut. 
xiii. 1. Thus when Moses was divinely called, Jehovah promised him 
a token or sign that he was sent of God, viz. the celebration of a 
festival on Mount Sinai. (Exod. hi. 12.) Afterwards his staff was 
changed into a serpent ; and his hand having been suddenly affected 
with leprosy was as suddenly healed. Gideon requested of God a 
sign that he was sent to save Israel from the hand of the Midianites. 
(Jud. vi. 17.) A sign was announced to Eli relating the destruction 
of his house, viz. that his two sons should die in one day. (1 Sam. 
ii. 27.) Isaiah offers Ahazasign; and when the king would not 
choose one, the prophet himself gives it, the birth of Immanuel. In 
these and other instances a sign signifies some palpable and im- 
pressive token, which claims to be divine, and so attests the person 
who utters or does it. The thing which constitutes the mark must be 
referred to God interposing in the affairs of individuals, that they and 
others may be assured that a divine mission belongs to such in- 
dividuals. The significance of these ninitf may refer to the future, 
or to the past and present. The two words usually translated sign 
and iconder, when found together (rritf, sign, and r\£)D, wonder), are 
distinguished in Deut. xiii. 2. The latter is more restricted in 
meaning, referring to the future alone. They are therefore equivalent 
to sign and omen respectively. 2 In all cases, these attestations imply 
the operation of superhuman power. Viewed as marks of true prophecy 

1 Select Discourses, p. 239. ed. 1821. "■ Gomp. Kocster, p. 206. 

3 G 4 



824 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

they are miraculous ; though very often they are not miracles. But 
signs alone are not sufficient to attest a true prophet. Hence, 

2. The accomplishment of prophecy affords a stronger evidence of 
its genuineness: an incipient and a complete fulfilment; a springing 
or germinant, and a completed sense ; a preparatory" or typical, as 
well as an entire, accomplishment. A very expressive word is 
applied to the former in Isa. xiii. 9., xliii. 19., viz. W$, to sprout 
forth or shoot. It is also termed n'lK, a sign, or presage of what is to 
follow. This preparatory fulfilment was an assurance to such as 
witnessed it, that the future would be fully realised, being at once a 
foretaste and a warrant of all that was declared. Doubtless the final 
accomplishment alone affords demonstration of the truth of prophecy. 
Other predictions were not of this nature, relating to one event alone, 
or to a single series of events in the future. Where the event or 
events were proximate, these were available to the prophets' contem- 
poraries as a testimonial in their favour ; and indeed were mainly 
employed for that purpose. Where an incipient fulfilment near 
enough was not furnished, it was necessary that the prophets should 
secure the confidence of their contemporaries in that portion of their 
prophecies which related to remote events, by some predictions re- 
specting events of speedy occurrence. This accounts, as Jahn has 
remarked l , for the fact that they sometimes foretold proximate events 
of little moment with as much care as others of far higher im- 
portance. Examples of such proximate events, comparatively unim- 
portant in themselves, occur in 2 Sam. xii. 14.,xxiv. 11 — 14. ; 1 Kings 
xi. 31, 32., xiii. 5., xiv. 6. 12. Jeremiah's claims were authenticated 
by the fulfilment of his prediction that Shallum should die in prison 
and see his native land no more. (Jer. xxii. 11, 12.) Isaiah's 
divine mission was established when his wife bore him the son 
symbolically called Immanuel ; and when the thing he had said 
should take place within three or four years after the son's birth 
actually happened. 

3. The true prophet was known by his announcing only what was 
worthy of God. He spoke in the name of the Lord. (Deut. xviii. 22,, 
xiii. 1 — 5.) This implied that what he said agreed with the Mosaic 
law, with the other true prophets, and with itself. The Holy Spirit, 
by whom he was moved, could prompt only to what was true, holy, 
and consistent. False prophets indeed sometimes spoke in the name 
of the true God ; but their predictions were not fulfilled ; and there- 
fore their claims could be easily detected. It is obvious that the 
prophets who spoke in the name of other gods, w r ere impostors. The 
law of Moses condemned such to death (Deut. xiii. 2 — 6.), even 
though their predictions should be accomplished. Treason against 
the king, who was none other than Jehovah, was capitally punished. 

Let us now consider the different modes of prophecy. Here dif- 
ferent distinctions and degrees have been made by Jewish and Chris- 
tians writers, most of which are given by Carpzov. 2 Maimonides 
enumerates as many as eleven degrees of prophecy. 3 If the word be 

1 Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 387. 2 Introductio ad Libb. Bibl. pars iii. p. 14. et seqq. 

3 Moreh Nevochim, p. 315. et seqq. ed. Buxtorf. 



General Observations on Prophetism. 825 

taken in its wide sense, equivalent to revelation of the will of God to 
whomsoever communicated, the division made by Carpzov is as con- 
venient as any other, viz. civil, sacerdotal, and prophetic revelation. 
The first is exemplified by the use of the lot, as in the case of Achan 
(Josh. vii. 14.); of Saul and Jonathan (1 Sam. xiv. 42.); of Jonah 
(i. 7.): the general principle being enunciated in Prov. xvi. 33.: 
" The lot is cast into the lap ; but the whole disposing thereof is of 
the Lord." The priestly was by the Urim and Thummim (Exod. 
xxviii. 29, 30. ; Lev. viii. 5 — 9.), into an examination of which we 
need not now enter. 1 What we are concerned with is, prophecy in 
its more specific sense — that peculiar revelation of the will of God 
connected with the prophetic order. Here the basis of a classifica- 
tion lies in Num. xii. 6, 7, 8. : " If there be a prophet among you, I 
the Lord will make myself known unto him in a vision, and will 
speak unto him in a dream. My servant Moses is not so, who is 
faithful in all mine house. With him will I speak mouth to mouth, 
even apparently, and not in dark speeches," &c. According to this 
passage the steps or gradations of prophecy are dreams, visions, conver- 
sation with the Deity. 

1. Dreams. — In this remarkable state, when the spirit is free as it 
were from the earthly incumbrance of the body, the divine will was 
not unfrequently communicated to men. The lowest place in the 
region of prophecy belongs to dreams, because they are often vague, 
and not readily distinguishable from ordinary cogitations or fancies. 
Those which came from God and marked his interposition were 
ascertained either by the fulfilment of what they announced as 
future, or bj their agreement with the result of sober reflection in 
waking hours. In all cases, a strong impression must have been 
left on the mind of the dreamer, that the revelations were of divine 
origin. Every one who had such dreams was not a prophet on that 
account. Thus Pharaoh and his servants, Nebuchadnezzar, &c, were 
favoured with divine dreams. He only who received their significa- 
tion from God, in addition to themselves, was a prophet. Thus to 
Abraham were announced the bondage of his posterity in Egypt 
and deliverance from it, accompanied with the promise of long life to 
himself. (Gem xv. 12. &c.) Such too was the case of Joseph 
(Gen. xxxvii. 7., xl. 8., xli. 16.); and of Daniel (ii. 27., vii. 1.). 
The example of the last is peculiar ; the dream of another, as well as 
its interpretation, being disclosed to him. 

2. Visions. — In the waking state the prophets saiv things. Balaam, 
in allusion to this state, is said to have his eyes open, i. e. the eyes of 
the mind. What is seen must either be human or divine. In the 
case of the former the thing itself is seen, or a symbol i.e. an outward 
representation of it. We behold either things themselves, or their 
images. But divine things can only be seen in an inward ideal 
representation. Thus when Micaiah says, " I saw the Lord sitting 
on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right 
hand and on his left " (1 Kings xxii. 19.), and when Isaiah similarly 

1 See Smith's Select Discourses, p. 253. et seqq. ed. 1821 ; Henderson's Divine Inspira- 
tion, p. 1 13. et seqq., 2d edition. 



826 - Introduction to the Old Testament. 

writes, " I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, 
and his train filled the temple," &c, all that is meant is, that they saw 
infancy or idea Jehovah as a King enthroned. Outward imagery is 
employed to set forth the idea the more impressively. Such anthro- 
pomorphism was necessary to the people of that time, who could not 
rise to the height of abstract monotheism. We are aware that there 
are other modes of explaining these appearances of Jehovah ; and 
that difficulties more or less formidable are connected with every in- 
terpretation : but the present is not the place to enter into their con- 
sideration. Indeed, we cannot even mention ail the explanations 
proposed. 

All vision must necessarily be obscure. This is implied in the 
words of Num. xxiv. 17 v "1 see him, but not now; I behold him, 
but not nigh." 

Some have supposed that when visions were seen, the prophets 
were in trance or ecstasy. This does not differ much from the view 
of Hengstenberg, viz. that during the continuance of such visions 
there was a complete cessation of intelligent consciousness, or, a 
state of entire passiveness. Having already combated this erroneous 
opinion, we shall not now repeat the remarks. All that appears to 
us tenable is, that the mind of the prophets was raised above the in- 
fluence of material impressions. Its powers were concentrated in the 
contemplation of supernatural things. It was a state in which the 
prophets appeared almost carried out of themselves ; so unconscious 
were they of external and material objects. The spirit completely 
triumphed over the body, so that it was engrossed with ideas not 
sensations. Intelligent consciousness did not cease. Rather was it 
sublimated, refined, and stretched to a high pitch of excitement ; the 
body and sensations being unfelt. This is different from proper 
trance or ecstasy. The difference between a dream and a vision is 
supposed by Smith to he in circumstantials rather than any thing 
essential. The one was certainly superior to the other, because a 
vision represents things more to the life, and belongs to the prophet 
while he is awake. According to Maimonides and Smith, a vision 
often " declines " into a true dream ; for which they quote the 
example of Abraham. (Gen. xv. 1. &c.) We should rather say, that 
dream " succeeded" vision in that instance. 

Allied to this seeing of visions, and virtually included in it, is hear- 
ing the word. This is a higher and surer mode of prophecy. What 
the prophet hears is called the word of Jehovah, i. e. divine instruc- 
tion, the revelation of the divine will. On this account the prophets 
announce the word of the Lord (Jud. iii. 20. ; 1 Sam. xv. 16, 17.); and 
Balaam is termed a hearer of the words of God (Num. xxiv. 4.). 
This hearing of the words of Jehovah must not be understood in a 
gross sense ; as if the Deity, who is pure Spirit, needed articulate 
sounds to communicate his will to the prophets. The language is 
anthropomorphic, both in adaptation to the weakness of man's intellect, 
and also for the sake of making a stronger impression. Hearing the 
word of Jehovah is equivalent to the reception of a divine message, 
which comes to men in various :vavs, mediate and immediate. Those 



General Observations on Prophetism. 827 

who heard such words received supernatural communications to be 
promulgated to others. But they did not receive the disclosures of 
the heavenly will through the actual production of articulate words 
on the part of Deity, as Henderson ! erroneously argues. It is dero- 
gatory to the Divine Being to assert that He produced audible and 
articulate sounds, conveying messages to men by words in the air. 
fi There cannot be," says this writer, " the least incongruity in his 
(Jehovah's) having occasionally done that himself immediately, for 
the attaintment of certain great and important ends, which is ordi- 
narily effected through the instrumentality of organs adapted and ap- 
pointed for this purpose." 2 Yes, there is great incongruity. To 
reason thus, as if God immediately produced certain component, 
intelligible words, is to mistake the general purport of anthropo 
morphic diction. 

3. The most eminent of all the modes of communicating the 
divine will to man was conversation with God. This was granted to 
Moses alone, of whom God said, " With him will I speak mouth 
to mouth, even apparently, and not in dark speeches," &c. Hence 
we read in Deuteronomy (xxxiv. 10.) that there arose no pro- 
phet subsequently like unto him, whom the Lord knew face to face. 
What is exactly implied in the phraseology speaking mouth to mouth, 
when applied to the intercourse of a creature with the Creator, it is 
not easy to define. Very close communion is doubtless involved in 
it. Moses apprehended the will of God immediately, without any 
symbolical vehicle. He received revelations from the Most High 
without the mediation of an angelic power or symbolic represent- 
ation. It cannot be supposed, however, that Moses stood in this 
near relation to God during his whole life. He was not so favoured 
at all times. The language should be restricted to certain times ; as 
when he received the law on Sinai. He was then in a peculiar con- 
dition resembling ecstasy. 

How far Jesus was elevated above the highest prophet of tbe 
Old Testament need not now be stated. He had neither dreams, 
nor visions, nor ecstasies. Like Moses, he stood in the most inti- 
mate relation to God, not merely at some seasons, but always. He 
was constantly in closest union with the Deity, he and the Father 
being one. The divine and the human were manifested in him in 
the highest and most glorious combination. 

4. When the different kinds of prophecy now mentioned ceased, 
they were succeeded, according to the Jews, by the Bath Kol, i. e. 
daughter of a voice, some voice which was heard as descending from 
heaven, directing them in any affair as occasion required. Smith 3 no- 
tices two or three places in the New Testament which he understands of 
this daughter of the voice, or successor of prophecy, viz. John xii. 28, 
29. ; Matt. hi. 17., xvii. 5, 6.; but the conjecture is groundless. 

The prophetism of the Old Testament begins, properly speaking, 
with Samuel, and ends with Malachi, i.e. from 1100 — 400 B.C. 
Hence it occupies a period of about 700 years. This may be conve- 

1 See Divine Inspiration, &e. &c. p. 71. 2nd edition. 

2 See Knobel's Prophetismus, vol. ii. p. 72. 3 Select Discourses, p. 279. 



828 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

niently divided into four smaller sections of time, viz., the older time, 
1100—800; the Assyrian period, 800— 700 ; the Chaldean period, 
625— 536 ; the post-exile period, 536— 400. l 

1. The older period. — During it the prophets were very numerous. 
They formed associations, and were united as an order, among the 
people, somewhat analogous to the order of priests. Looking at 
prophecy itself in its gradual development throughout successive cen- 
turies, this may be called the iron age. The golden and silver will 
be noticed afterwards. The prophets exhibited the greatest energy 
and power at the time referred to. There was a certain rough wild- 
ness belonging to them which shows the kind of people with whom 
they had to do. Here Elijah is the type. On him the elevated 
truths of religion exerted a marvellous influence. It was in conse- 
quence of this remarkable efficacy of the Divine Spirit upon Elijah 
that a number of disciples appeared; whence the internal force of 
prophethood diminished in proportion to the diffusion of the gift. 
But still the prophets usually occupied an independent position. 
They were in both kingdoms of Israel and Judah, but were more 
numerous in the former, because the prophetic schools were there. 
In the succeeding periods, these inspired men were almost confined 
to the kingdom of Judah. Union and cooperation appeared among 
them now. Their views and efforts partake of uniformity and plan, 
so that they were a distinct party. It is also observable that at this 
time they took upon them in part the administration of theocratic 
ceremonies. Their functions were less distinct from the priests' than 
afterwards. Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha offered sacrifices; Gad and 
Nathan made regulations respecting music in the sanctuary. But in 
the succeeding periods, the priestly order managed the department of 
public worship as exclusively belonging to themselves. It would 
also appear from the historical books, that these prophets were chiefly 
distinguished by action. They stood apart from the people in their 
original undivided power. Hence they were respected and obeyed 
without contradiction. Like a foreign and awe-inspiring manifesta- 
tion of the divine power — an external form of greatness in contrast 
with the people — they set themselves as a wall against heathenism 
in every shape, putting forth unusual energy in opposition to earthly 
potentates. They did not penetrate far into the spiritual life of the 
mass. Rather did they overpower them by the magnitude of their 
deeds as well as the pregnant energy of their words. The people 
looked up to them as persons far removed from their low sphere of 
humanity by the wonderful exhibitions of a superhuman energy which 
struck directly at its object with fearless aim. As popular speakers 
they were less cultivated than their successors. Their speeches were 
simple and prosaic — spontaneous outbursts of zeal; — short, moral 
addresses, admonitory, threatening, promising, censuring, advising. 
They were brief, energetic, practical ; without poetic ornament and 
oratorical fulness, or far-reaching depth and comprehensiveness. 
Their successors present more culture as speakers and writers. And 

V.See Knobcl's Prophetisiuus, vol, ii. pp. 18, 19. 



General Observations on Prophetism. 829 

their addresses are more copious and profound, looking farther into the 
future. In form and manner they are more poetic and oratorical. 
The prophets of this time did not found a proper prophetic literature. 
What they wrote was rather of the nature of historical and biogra- 
phical essays. Such were the productions of Gad, Nathan, Shemaiah, 
Iddo, and Jehu. But after them we find a proper prophetic litera- 
ture. Not only were the popular discourses of their successors of a 
literary nature ; but even things which had not been delivered orally 
were committed to writing, to serve as permanent instruction for the 
people of God. The defects belonging to the prophecy of this early 
time were such as adhered to it out of the pre-Mosaic, heathen 
period. 

To this time belong Samuel, Gad, Nathan, Ahijah, the old pro- 
phet at Bethel (1 Kings xiii. 1. &c), Micaiah the son of Imlah (1 Kings 
xxii. 25.), Elijah, Elisha, Shemaiah, Iddo, Azariah, Hananiah, Jehu 
his son, Jahuziel, Eliezer, Zechariah son of Jehoiada, and an 
anonymous prophet who dissuaded Amaziah from undertaking an 
expedition against the Edomites (2 Chron. xxv. 7.). 

2. The Assyrian period, 800 — 700 B. C. The relation of the 
Assyrians to the covenant-people is the central truth which regulates 
the prophetic phenomena of this time. To it belong Amos, Jonah, 
Hosea, Zechariah (2 Chron. xxvi. 5.), Isaiah, Zechariah son of Jebe- 
rechiah (Isaiah viii. 2.), Oded, Joel, Micah, Nahum, Hosai (2 Chron. 
xxxiii. 19.). In this second period, reaching from Joel, Amos, and 
Hosea, to king Manasseh, we recognise the golden age of prophecy, its 
culminating point being attained in Isaiah. Here the difficulties it 
had to encounter were of the most formidable nature. Externally it 
was not at once respected and obeyed. On the contrary, it was often 
a subject of ridicule and scorn. The people and their rulers were 
not willing hearers of the threatening messages conveyed to them. But 
the greatest obstacle was from within. Some forgot their high calling 
and yielded to the flatteries of the great. Tempted away from 
genuine prophetic virtue, they lowered their position. These there- 
fore were to be withstood. All the resources and capabilities of the 
true prophets were summoned to overcome such defection. And 
the thing was accomplished. They wrestled victoriously with these 
dangerous enemies. Exhibiting the highest self-denial, freedom, and 
versatility, they attained to an elevated stand-point of the highest 
and purest influence in relation to their own time, and of eternal 
moment to all generations. Here we have the loftiest manifestation 
of prophets as speakers and writers together. Writing was with 
them the consequence and fruit of public speaking and acting. It 
was therefore, in a measure, subordinate to the wonderful ministry 
which they exercised in public. They were writers because they were 
religious orators of the highest order, enunciating spiritual truths 
of universal import to mankind. 1 

To this golden succeeded the silver age of prophecy, comprehend- 
ing the Chaldean and post-exile periods, in which it was accompanied 
with less energy and fewer external manifestations. 
1 Comp. Knobel, vol. ii. p. 25. etseqq. 



830 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

3. The Chaldean period, 625—536 b. a, reaches from the down- 
fall of the Assyrian empire to the end of the exile. Here the rela- 
tion of the Babylonians to the covenant-people is the chief topic, 
around which others are grouped. To this belong Obadiah, Zepha- 
niah, Jeremiah, Urijah of Kirjath-jearim (Jeremiah xxvi. 20 — 23.), 
Habakkuk, Ezekiel, Daniel. 

4. The post-exile period 536—400 B. c. is distinguished by the 
fact, that in it the prophets labour for the restoration of the theocracy 
in a far better form than it had yet assumed. To this belong Haggai, 
Zechariah son of Berechiah, Malachi. 

Here prophecy was limited very much to the clear, pure, divine 
word, distinguished from imperfect modes of revelation, such as 
dreams. Violent gesticulations and outward signs were less prominent ; 
and so far it showed a higher development than was attained even in 
the last period. It had penetrated more extensively into the life 
of the people; having overcome all the deteriorations to which it had 
been exposed. The prophets are now writers more than speakers. 
They calmly unfold the ideas of their inspired minds. Unlike what 
took place in the preceding period, when the ivritten was a true copy 
of the forcible and directly efficacious spoken discourse, the prophet 
in his leisure hours substitutes for the spoken the written dis- 
course. This accounts for the fact that visions appear more fre- 
quently. More art was now required for bodying forth with effect 
the truths committed to writing. And visions were adopted as vehicles 
or means of presenting ideas. But here they are of a more artificial 
character than such as are found in the older prophets. This very 
artificiality, however, is a mark of decay. Compared with the living 
breath of the old genuine prophecy it is but a feeble thing. It is 
only a one-sided manifestation of eternal truth. We might trace the 
gradual sinking of prophecy from the time of Jeremiah, who was the 
greatest master of this its last form, and his disciple Ezekiel, till its 
cessation with Malachi. Old oracles are now repeated. The rich 
fulness of the ancient prophets supplies ideas, images, and words also, 
to the later. Imitation and copying are apparent. 

In this manner we might describe the gradual unfolding of pro- 
phecy from Moses till Malachi, dividing it, with Knobel, more objec- 
tively into four periods ; or with Ewald l , more subjectively, into the 
three ages just noticed, each marked by peculiar phenomena. 

The iron age was the time of action ; the golden, of action, speech, 
and Avriting united ; the silver, of writing. In the first, priesthood and 
prophethood were partly mixed. Even the high priest had his oracle, 
according to law, i. e. the Urim ; and other priests encroached upon 
the province of the prophets. In the second age, prophecy was 
entirely separated from the priesthood ; and heathen oracles sank im- 
mensely below the dignity of true prophecy. The gifted men now 
spake and wrote with a living freshness corresponding to the internal 
fulness of their minds, exhibiting in all their movements extraor- 
dinary self-denial and freedom. In the third age, prophecy partook 

1 Die Propheten, u. s. w. vol. i. p. 36. et seqq. 



General Observations on Prophetism. 831 

more of the calm, written expression, of ideas springing up spon- 
taneously, not struggling for utterance nor bursting forth with irresist- 
ible energy, but allowing opportunity to be enunciated with artifi- 
ciality and elaboration. The questions with which prophecy was 
occupied during the early time were less important, being incidental 
things relating immediately to the events of the day, though neces- 
sarily connected with the kingdom of God however remotely. Those 
which characterised it during the second period were the universal 
questions of all time ; while in the last period, general truths were 
unfolded, whose germ, at least, was already contained in the writings 
of the highest prophets. It was an age of the exposition and evolution 
of ideas enunciated before. 1 

It must be apparent to every one who has studied the prophetic lite- 
rature of the Old Testament, that the whole of it is not extant. The 
present pieces are but a part of what antiquity possessed. This fact, 
for as such we regard it, might be inferred from the extent of what 
remains, which bears little proportion to the number of prophets. 
Joel presupposes older prophetic writings no longer extant (iii. 5. ; 
English, ii. 32.), as the Lord hath said ; a phrase which alludes to the 
well known expressions of older prophets, not to his own oracles. So 
too Hosea alludes to unknown pieces (vii. 12., viii. 12.). In Isa. 
ii. 2 — 4. and Micah iv. 1 — 4., is contained the same extract from 
some older oracle no longer extant. Other examples might be given. 2 
And it is almost needless to add, that the prophetic books are not 
now in their original state. They have been variously disposed and 
arranged by later hands. Most of them have suffered greater or less 
alteration. The text itself, indeed, is tolerably pure from foreign ad- 
mixture ; except that a few glosses have intruded here and there. 
Jeremiah's words have been most freely dealt with. In the case of 
others, collectors and compilers usually confined themselves to arrange- 
ment, in their own peculiar way ; besides prefixing inscriptions in 
different places. But in investigating a topic of this nature, great 
caution is needed, lest the higher criticism run into excess, and arbi- 
trary conjecture supply the place of sober induction. Hence Ewald 3 , 
who has many acute remarks which cannot be neglected by the 
inquirer, has adopted a course with the view of explaining the state in 
which the prophetic books now are, which we cannot agree with, be- 
cause it is largely the offspring of a capricious subjectivity. He has 
not succeeded in pointing out the processes through which the books 
passed till they became very much what they now are. Perhaps the 
subject is of a kind to baffle all such attempts. It is an adventurous 
region, into which the person who enters will find embarrassment at 
every step. Historical evidence fails ; and where that is wanting, the 
evidence that lies within the books themselves is of a very difficult 
and delicate nature. 

It is useless to attempt any enumeration of all the prophets in the 
Old Testament. The Rabbinical account makes forty-eight prophets 
and seven prophetesses. But the Christian fathers do not agree with 

1 Comp. Ewald, Propheten, u. s. w. vol. i. p. 35. et seqq. 

2 See Ewald, Die Propheten, u. s. w. vol. i. p. 54. et seqq. 3 Ibid. p. 55. 



832 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

this; nor with one another. Clement of Alexandria 1 reckons thirty- 
five prophets and five prophetesses ; Epiphanius 2 , seventy-two pro- 
phets and ten prophetesses ; Pseudo-Epiphanius 3 names twenty-five 
prophets ; Isidore of Spain 4 , thirty-one prophets and three pro- 
phetesses. 5 

In the preceding sketch of Prophetism, we have limited the obser- 
vations to the Old Testament, as that was our exclusive topic. They 
will apply, however, in substance, to the New Testament also ; for 
prophecy in both differs more in degree than nature. Those who 
wish to prosecute the subject may be referred to the able volume of 
Koester 6 , and the longer treatise of Knobel. 7 

The prophetical books of the Old Testament are sixteen in num- 
ber, the Lamentations of Jeremiah being usually considered as an 
appendix to his predictions : and are commonly divided into two 
classes, — 1. The greater prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel ; 
2. The minor prophets, Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Obadiah, Micah, 
Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. They 
are called greater and lesser not from personal considerations, but in 
relation to the extent of their writings. The order in which they are 
placed is not the same in the Hebrew Bible and the Septuagint. 
Instead of Daniel following the third greater prophet, viz. Ezekiel, 
he is put in another division of the Hebrew Bible, the Hagiographa, 
after Esther. In the Greek version he follows Ezekiel. In the 
Hebrew, the minor prophets stand thus : Hosea, Joel, Amos, 
Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, 
Zechariah, Malachi ; but in the Greek translation they are arranged, 
Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, 
Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Neither in the Hebrew 
nor in the Greek are they disposed in chronological order. 

The writings of the twelve minor prophets are particularly valua- 
ble for their notices of numerous events relating to the history of the 
kingdoms of Judah, Israel, Babylon, Idumaga, Egypt, Moab, and 
Amnion. Few of these are noticed in the sacred history ; and pro- 
fane history is barren with regard to them. Hence the productions 
in question are a kind of supplement to the history of the times in 
which they appeared, and those succeeding years of which they 
prophesied. 

It is of some importance to have a correct idea of the respective 
times in which the prophets lived and wrote, because it serves to 
illustrate their meaning. A good scheme of arrangement is desirable. 
But many of those proposed are useless, or objectionable on other 
grounds. That of Van Til, adopted by Francke, is cumbrous and 
inconvenient. In some particulars it is incorrect. According to it, 

1 Stromata, i. p. 335. ed. Rylburg. 

2 In Cotelerius's Patres Apostolici, vol. i. p. 295. ed. Clerici. 

3 Epiphanii Opera, vol. ii. p. 235. 

4 Lib. vii. Origin, cap. 8. 

5 See Carpzov's Introductio ad Libros Propheticos, p. 64 et seqq. 

6 Die Propheten des alten und neuen Testaments, Leipzig, 1838. 

7 Der Prophetismus der Hebraeer vollstandig dargestellt, Breslau, 1837, two parts. 



General Observations on the Prophets. 833 

four periods are made out, viz. I. Prophets who delivered their pre- 
dictions during the continuance of the Jewish polity, under which 
are the two subdivisions, (1.) in Judah and Israel; (2.) prophets 
who delivered predictions against other nations. II. Prophets who 
delivered their predictions between the carrying of the Israelites into 
captivity by the Assyrians, and the first expedition of Nebuchad- 
nezzar. Here also are two subdivisions, (1.) in Judah ; (2.) pro- 
phets who delivered predictions against other nations. III. Prophets 
during the Babylonish captivity Avho delivered their predictions, (1.) 
concerning the Jews, (2.) against the enemies of the Jews. IV. Pro- 
phets who delivered predictions in Judea after the captivity. 

Another table has been given by Bishop Gray in his Key to the 
Old Testament, taken from the tables of Newcome and Blair, with 
a few exceptions. But this list is not sufficiently precise ; and 
various dates in it are palpably incorrect. Dr. Pye Smith 1 has also 
exhibited a synoptic table of the prophets with the contemporary 
kings of Judea, and other states connected with the times and his- 
tory of the prophets, which is much superior to Gray's. And were 
it entirely correct, we should at once transfer it to our pages. But 
it cannot be regarded as such. The following has therefore been 
attempted as a more probable account of the exact times when the 
prophets wrote. 

Mr. Home, who followed Gray's table, distributed the times in 
which the prophets flourished into three; viz. 1. Before the Baby- 
lonian captivity. 2. Near to and during that event. 3. After the 
return of the Jews from Babylon. This arrangement is conve- 
nient in some respects. It is certainly superior to Jahn's. We pre- 
fer the division into four periods already given, but shall follow the 
order of the books in the English Bible. 



The table in the next page exhibits the prophets in their supposed 
order of time. 



1 On the Principles of Interpretation, as applied to the Prophecies of Holy Scripture, 
p. 74. 



VOL. II. 3 H 






834 



Introduction to the Old Testament. 



s § | s 



i-s i-a h> 



B P 



° -3 



UN 

c8 


c3 


M 


rd 


^3 


tsl 


<d 


^ 






w 


g 


a" 




ca 


c8 


N* 


rCl 


,£3 


ci 


4J 




^ 


c 




1-3 


<1 








^ 


,jd 




p g 


[g 




*N 


"n 


JS 


N 


N 


O 


t3 


u 



s 


02 

03 


3 




& 


Ph 




§ 

-^ 


02 


p 




02 


02 






P^ 


^ 


w 


. 


w 


w 





3 


03 

.3 
ft 


02 

g 
ft 


1 




■+-1 





N 
03 



<3 c5 c3 

'3 '3 "3 
000 

1-3 ^ H-3 



•5 

o 

03 






00 



tP CO O 

CO *0 >0 

l^ l> t>. 



<M (M 

CO CO 



^ »o o o © © 

O ffi CO b N N 
CO lO *0 >C ^ *» 






.■a § 

cS r>-| 



K N b 



•£3 1— 1 03 ra 

C3 <u .fh 1!-1 



w 



Ml 

«5 03 J2 

W N S 



On the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 835 

CHAP. XVIII. 

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET ISAIAH. 

Few particulars are known respecting Isaiah the prophet ; nothing 
indeed but what we find in his own writings. He was the son of 
Amoz, whom Rabbinical tradition makes the brother of king Ama- 
ziah. As to the identification of Amoz with the prophet Amos by- 
Clement of Alexandria and some other fathers, it arises from igno- 
rance of Hebrew, where the names have a different orthography (pEX 
and Difty), though in Greek they are the same ('A/xcos). We learn from 
various passages that Isaiah was married and had three sons (vii. 3., viii. 
3. 18.) with symbolical names, Shear-jashub, Maher-shalal-hash-baz, 
and Immanuel. His wife is called nK v 33, a prophetess, i. e. the wife of a 
prophet, not that she had a prophetic gift, as Grotius and Heng- 
stenberg think. Like Elijah, he wore a garment of hair-cloth (xx. 3.), 
though he does not appear to have led a life altogether ascetic. His 
residence was in Jerusalem not far from the temple. He prophesied 
under the kings of Judah, Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah. 

<M0 

At what time in the reign of Uzziah he began to prophesy cannot 
be determined. Abarbanel thinks that he appeared as a public 
teacher in the early years of his reign ; while others, both Jews and 
Christians, suppose that he prophesied several years before the death 
of that monarch, reasoning from 2 Chron. xxvi. 22., and Isaiah vi. 
on insecure grounds. It is better to suppose that he began imme- 
diately before the death of Uzziah, in the last year of his reign. It has 
been disputed whether his ministry extended to the reign of Manasseh. 
Gesenius and Moller suppose that it did reach the time of this king, 
relying on exegetical grounds that are uncertain. The following- 
reasons are adduced for the opinion in question : — 

1. We see from 2 Chron. xxxii. 32., that Isaiah wrote the life of 
Hezekiah. Hence he survived that king. 

2. There is a Rabbinical and patristic tradition, to which also the 
writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews is supposed to allude (xi. 37.), 
that the prophet was put to death by Manasseh, being sawn asunder. 

3. If the authenticity of chapters xl. — lxvi. be admitted, Isaiah 
appears to have lived under Manasseh. The style of this second 
part of the book is so different from that of the first part, that a con- 
siderable time must have elapsed between their composition. Be- 
sides, the nature of the contents is applicable to the reign of Manasseh, 
not to Hezekiah's. The writer censures the gross idolatry prevail- 
ing, the sacrifice of children to idols, the wickedness of rulers, &c., 
which does not suit the reign of the good king Hezekiah. 

Little weight attaches to these considerations ; at least they are 
not conclusive. Gesenius has shown l that 2 Chron. xxxii. 32. 

1 Commentar ueber den Iesaia, vol. i. p. 24. et seqq. 
3 n 2 



836 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

admits of another interpretation, and affords no sure basis for the infer- 
ence derived from it. The prophet may have written Hezekiah's bio- 
graphy up to a certain point, and not till his death. The Rabbinical 
tradition is uncertain. Nor is it likely that Hezekiah, though a pious 
king, could have succeeded in abolishing all idolatry and gross abuses 
during Lis reign. The personal character and efforts of the monarch 
could only reach a certain length, as appears from the case of Josiah. 
Besides the complaints in the second part may allude to the reign 
of Ahaz. 

The chief considerations against extending the prophetic ministry 
of Isaiah till Manasseh's time lie in the inscription of the book. 
There Hezekiah is mentioned as the last ; none of the single pro- 
phecies having a title of its own reaching farther than the fifteenth 
year of Hezekiah. Some good reason should be found for supposing 
that any prophecy goes beyond that date. Besides, too great an 
age is assigned to the prophet by placing him under Manasseh. 
" Although," says Hengstenberg, "we were to suppose that Isaiah, 
as well as Jeremiah, was called to the prophetic office at an early 
age — perhaps in his twentieth year — he, nevertheless, in the 
fifteenth year of Hezekiah, up to which date we can prove his minis- 
trations by existing documents, would have reached quite, or nearly, 
his seventieth year, which is the usual duration of human life ; con- 
sequently, at the time of the accession of Manasseh, he would have 
been about eighty-four years old ; and if, with the defenders of the 
tradition, we allow that he exercised the prophetic functions for 
about seven or eight years during the reign of Manasseh, he must 
at the period of his martyrdom have attained to the age of ninety- 
two. This indeed is quite possible." 1 It is, however, very impro- 
bable. 

Taking the year of Uzziah's death (vi. 1.) as the commencement 
of his prophetic labours, which was 759 B. C, and inferring from 
xxxix. 1. that he lived till 703 B. C, he discharged his prophetic 
functions during a period of fifty-five or fifty-six years. Longer 
than this he cannot be supposed with much probability to have 
laboured. 

With regard to arrangement and plan, it is difficult to say how 
the individual discourses and parts were put together. Some have 
tried to find a chronological arrangement in them ; but this view 
cannot be sustained by anything approaching to probable evidence. 
Others again, as Vitringa and Jahn, suppose that similarity of con- 
tents led to the grouping together and succession of the various por- 
tions. Neither can this hypothesis commend itself to the acceptance 
of critics. More ingenious and plausible is the view of Drechsler 
and Keil, who assume the principle of a successive unfolding of the 
prophetic work, corresponding to the historical course which his mis- 
sion took, and resulting from it ; agreeably to which the constituent 
parts are united in one whole complete in itself, pervaded by de- 

1 Article Isaiah, in Kitto'a Cyclopaedia of Bibl. Lit. 



On the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 837 

signed connection and constant development, so that both the relation 
of time and similarity of contents are joined with this plan in beauti- 
ful harmony. It is supposed that the entire mission of the prophet 
has for its object and centre the two events of his time which con- 
stituted an epoch for the theocracy, — the march of the united kings 
of Aram and Ephraim against Jerusalem; and Sennacherib's in- 
vasion of Judah. Accordingly, it is believed that the single parts 
of the book are disposed around these occurrences into two great 
groups of prophecies, in such a manner as that the discourses 
spoken respecting the events in question form the centre of each 
group ; the other px-ophecies being subordinated to these discourses 
either as preparing the way for and preceding them, or as following 
them in the character of a farther development of their consequences 
for the future of God's kingdom. The first group is said to consist 
of ii. — xxvii. ; the second of xxviii. — lxvi. ; the seventh chapter in 
the former, the thirty-sixth and thirty-seventh in the latter, forming 
the focus of each group ; and the first chapter containing a pro- 
phetic address to contemporaries and introductory to the entire 
collection. 1 

This view is much too artificial and complex to be followed as the 
original plan of the book. It may be safely said, that neither the 
prophet himself, nor the compiler, supposing them different persons, 
was guided by it. It is an attempt to introduce method and unity 
into a work which presents no definite or well arranged plan carried 
out in a uniform manner. As little success has attended Havernick's 
atempt to point out a regular disposition of the materials according 
to a distinct principle. 2 We are unable to perceive any one pervading 
or guiding principle running through the entire book and moulding 
its present form. Neither chronological succession, nor the grouping- 
together of similar materials, nor the successive unfolding of the pro- 
phet's mission, nor any great event described, constituted the focus of 
the whole. Sometimes the chronological principle has influenced the 
arrangement of particular parts ; sometimes homogeneousness ; some- 
times neither appears. Both have operated in a degree ; while in 
some cases the juxtaposition has been accidental. 

The work is most naturally divided into four books or groups of 
prophecies, viz. I. chap. i. — xii. ; II. chap. xiii. — xxiii. ; III. chap. 
xxiv. — xxxix. ; IV. chap. xl. — lxvi. The pieces in I. are only in 
part chronologically distributed. In II. they are chiefly disposed on 
the principle of similarity. The greater part of III. is chronological. 
So also the fourth. In no division, therefore, do we recognise the 
purely chronological, or the purely material arrangement. Both are 
more or less united. Which of the two was the guiding one it is not 
difficult to discern. The subject-matter was regarded more than the 
proper succession of time. 

In attempting to describe the contents of each book or division, 

1 See Drechsler's der Prophet Jesaja uebersetzt und erklart, Theil 1. p. 30. et seqq., 
and Keil's Einleit. p. 238. et seqq. 
- Einleit. ii. 2. p. 63. et seqq. 

3 H 3 



838 Introduction to the Old Testament 

we must determine the minor parts, and fix as nearly as possible 
their character ; for very different opinions are entertained respecting 
them. Let us consider the genuineness and time of the pieces in 
chap. i. — xii. It is commonly conceded that this first book contains 
authentic oracles of Isaiah belonging to the first period of his pro- 
phetic ministry. But it is difficult to discover the separate times 
when each was composed. 

The first chapter is supposed by most of the older interpreters to 
have proceeded from the time of Uzziah, or the years when Jotham 
ruled over the nation on behalf of his father Uzziah who was still 
alive. On the other hand, Calvin, Lowth, and Hendewerk place it 
under Jotham. More probable is the opinion of Hensler, Gesenius, 
De Wette, Rosenmuller, Maurer, Movers, Knobel, Havernick, that 
it belongs to the time of Ahaz. But we are rather inclined to assign 
its origin to the reign of Hezekiah, after the invasion of Sennacherib. 
The condition of the kingdom of Judah reduced to Jerusalem alone, 
the afflicted state of the people visited as they had been with sore 
judgments and having little of religion except a dead ritual service, 
agree well with this time. The contents are general, and serve to 
characterise the whole period of Isaiah's ministry in all essential 
features. Hence it was prefixed as an introduction to the entire 
collection. 

Chapters ii. — iv. form a connected prophecy depicting a prosperous 
condition of the people, when they were powerful, rich, luxurious, 
corrupted by intercourse with foreigners. Some, as Gesenius, Rosen- 
muller, Maurer, Movers, Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit, Stahelin, Alex- 
ander, Henderson, refer it to the first years of Ahaz, chiefly on 
account of iii. 12. But this view has been refuted by Caspari. 1 It 
must therefore be placed in the last years of Jotham, before 743, for 
it announces the incursion of the confederate Syrians and Israelites 
into Judah in the time of Ahaz. The reasons for this view are well 
stated by Knobel. 2 The opinion of Hengstenberg, Drechsler, Cas- 
pari, and Keil, that it belongs to the first years of Jotham, when he 
was regent in the lifetime of Uzziah, is untenable. 

The fifth chapter contains a prophecy younger than that in 
ii. — iv., and must therefore be placed in the commencement of Ahaz'a 
reign. Nearly the same condition of the people is implied in it. 

The sixth chapter is ascribed in the first verse to the year of 
IJzziah's death, and there is no reason with various critics for sup- 
posing it to have been written later. The most natural interpretation 
is that which refers it to the very commencement of the prophet's 
entrance upon office, as describing his original inauguration. The 
vision does not contain a new designation, merely to introduce with 
greater solemnity the prophecy that follows. 

Chapters vii. — xii. contain four discourses all belonging to the time 
of Ahaz, viz. vii., viii. — ix. 6., ix. 7 — x. 4., x. 5 — xii. The last three 



1 Beitrage zur Einleit. in das Buch Iesaia, u. s. w. p. 272. et segq. 
" Der Prophet Iesaia erklart, u. s. w. p. 13. et seqq. ed. 1. 



On the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 839 

are only about three quarters of a year later than the first, but 
appear to have been committed to writing some time after they were 
spoken, when the prophetic announcements began to be confirmed. 
Attempts have been made by Gesenius, Knobel, Ewald, and Ha- 
vernick, to determine the particular times of each more minutely, but 
without success. 

It is hardly worth while to allude particularly to the attacks which 
have been made on some parts of this first division, since the ge- 
nuineness of the whole is now commonly admitted. In consequence 
of the great similarity between ii. 2 — 4. and Micah iv. 1 — 3., some, 
as Koppe, Rosenmuller, Maurer, De Wette, Hitzig, Ewald, think 
that both Isaiah and Micah took the prediction of an older unknown 
prophet. That older prophet was not Joel. We adopt this hypo- 
thesis, rather than the supposition of Isaiah borrowing from Micah, 
who was a younger contemporary, or Micah from Isaiah, which 
latter is contradicted by the character of the language in both. A 
similarity in ideas and diction is observable in chap. i. — v. and va- 
rious passages of Micah, which can be accounted for by the con- 
temporaneousness of the two prophets ; but the close parallel be- 
tween ii. 2 — 4. and Micah iv. 1 — 3. can be rationally explained only 
in the way mentioned. The objections advanced by Gesenius against 
the authenticity of vii. 1 — 16. have been refuted by various critics, 
by Kleinert, Hitzig, and Havernick. The verses in question are a 
historical introduction to the prophecy that follows. The attack of 
Ewald l on xii. is feeble. The chapter is a hymn of praise in a lyric 
form, expanding the idea of xi. 15, 16. There is no valid reason 
for denying its authenticity, as both Umbreit and Havernick have 
shown. 

The second division, viz. xiii. — xxiii., contains, with one exception 
(xxii.), a series of prophecies against foreign nations. 

xiii. 1 — xiv. 27. This prophecy refers to the fall of the Babylonian 
empire and the destruction of the metropolis, Babylon itself. Se- 
parating xiv. 24 — 27. from the preceding, it has been assumed by 
many critics that xiii. 1 — xiv. 23. proceeded from a much later writer 
than Isaiah, one living towards the termination of the Babylonian 
captivity. Their arguments, if such they can be called, in favour of 
this hypothesis, have been well refuted by Havernick and Alexander. 
The chief cause which has led so many astray here, is the erroneous 
view of prophecy they take. As long as prophetic foresight is 
limited to the gropings of human sagacity, without any supernatural 
element, such prophecies as the present will be totally misunderstood. 
The prophets possessed more than a political knowledge of external 
circumstances. They were favoured with some apprehension of the 
internal relation of outward events, such as the position of Babylon 
in regard to the kingdom of God. When it is said that the spirit 
and views are foreign to Isaiah, the assertion is radically incorrect ; 
while the style and diction are by no means dissimilar, or so far 

1 Die Propheten des alten Bundes, vol. i. pp. 288, 289. 
3 h 4 



840 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

coincident with those of the later prophets, as to repudiate their 
Isaiah-origin. All the considerations advanced by Knobel are fal- 
lacious. 

Later prophets have imitated and used the chapters under con- 
sideration. Thus Hab. ii. 6. &c. contains an obvious allusion to 
Isaiah xiv. 4. &c. Compare also ii. 9. with Isaiah xiii. 9. 11., xiv. 
13. &c. In Zephaniah i. 7. VSOj? £"Tpn may be compared with Isaiah 
xiii. 3. and iii. 11.; ii. 13 — 15. resembles Isaiah xiii. 20, 21, 22. 
The imitation found in succeeding prophets is more observable, as in 
Ezekiel vii. 17. and xxi. 7. from Isaiah xiii. 7. ; Ezekiel xxxii. 12. &c. 
from Isaiah xiv. 4. The connection between the present oracle and 
Jeremiah 1., Ii. is so striking that almost every verse of the thir- 
teenth chapter has a parallel in the latter. 1 

In like manner the circle of ideas, images, and expressions in these 
chapters belong to Isaiah. Thus the erection of a banner as a signal 
to call distant nations together to fight the Lord's battle (xiii. 2. 5.) 
reappears in v. 26., xi. 10. 12., xviii. 3., xlix. 22., lxii. 10. The 
shaking of the hand (xiii. 2.) reappears in x. 32., xi. 15., xix. 16., 
xlix. 22. The comparison to Sodom and Gomorrah (xiii. 19.) is 
similar to i. 7. 9., iii. 9. The insertion of songs is like Isaiah's man- 
ner; compare xiv. 4. &c. with v. 1. &c, xii. The figure of breaking 
the staff (xiv. 5, 6.) has its parallel in x. 24., ix. 3. The felling of 
the cedars of Lebanon (xiv. 8.) reappears in xxxvii. 24. In like 
manner the personification of the cypresses rejoicing over one (xiv. 8.) 
is similar to xliv. 23., lv. 12. 

The idioms of Isaiah appear in prnp Y~\$, xiii. 5., comp. xlvi. 11. ; 
the union of 'l^, rn85fl and fiX|, xiii. 19., comp. iv. 2., xxviii. 1. 4, 5. ; 
D*V#P, xiii. 21. and xxxiv. 14. ; the form *);n», xiv. 6. and viii. 8. 23. ; 
ip., xiv. 19. and xi. 1. ; rnp, xiv. 6., comp. i. 5., xxxi. 6. ; f*?P, xiii. 3. 
and xxii. 2. ; JH.t in a bad sense xiv. 20. and i. 4. The figurative is 
explained in xiv. 9. 13, 14., comp. i. 5, 6, 7. 2 

The genuineness of xiv. 24 — 27. is undisputed, and favours that 
of the preceding prophecy with which it is closely connected. Be- 
sides, Jeremiah, in his oracle against Babylon, which imitates the 
present prophecy (1. 17, 18.), has had respect to the connection of 
Babylon and Assyria, saying, " Behold, I will punish the king of 
Babylon and his land, as I have punished the king of Assyria." 
Hence Jeremiah (1. 17, 18.) may almost be considered, with Drech- 
sler, as an authentic interpretation of xiv. 24 — 27. To separate the 
verses in question from the preceding prophecy, and to assume that 
they are the fragment of a larger oracle against Ashur belonging to 
Isaiah, as many do, is quite arbitrary ; besides the difficulty of find- 
ing a suitable place for them. Nor is the matter facilitated by re- 
garding them as a small, independent oracle ; because the want of an 
inscription, and the nature of the contents, where no one is addressed, 
forbid it. Thus the passage xiv. 24 — 27. belongs to what goes 
before ; and as it is admitted to be authentic, the oracle of which it 

1 See Kueper's Jeremias librorum sacrorum interpres atque vindex, p. 124. et seqq. 

2 See Drechsler der Prophet Iesaia, u. s. w. Th. 2. p. 116. etseqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 841 

is the conclusion should be considered authentic also. Hence we 
ascribe xiii. 1 — xiv. 27. to Isaiah himself. 

The prophecy in question must be referred to the early part of 
Ahaz's reign. It was composed before the catastrophe of Sen- 
nacherib, because of the conclusion (xiv. 24 — 27.), which announces 
the downfall of Assyria. Presenting as it does various points of 
contact with the preceding discourses (comp. xiii. 4. with ix. 4. ; xiv. 
5, 6. with ix. 4., x. 5. 24.), it appears to be an enlargement and 
continuation of the oracle respecting Ashur. Accordingly, it may 
be dated soon after x. 5 — xii. 6., as Vitringa and Drechsler have 
rightly inferred. 

It is commonly said that the prediction against Moab in xv. and 
xvi. proceeded from an older prophet, was repeated by Isaiah and 
adapted to his time, with an epilogue subjoined (xvi. 13, 14.). Hitzig 
has tried to identify the unknown prophet with Jonah 1 ; and with 
him agree Maurer and Knobel. The grounds for this hypothesis 
appear to us insufficient; such as the soft-hearted interest in a foreign 
nation elsewhere an object of hatred (xv. 5., xvi. 9. 11.) which 
Isaiah does not manifest ; a number of peculiar and partly rare ideas 
and applications which are without parallels (xv. 3. 5. 8., xvi. 8, 9.); 
a number of similar unexampled phrases and words ; and the general 
strain of the discourse. The description is said to be stiff, heavy, 
clumsy ; it wants power and easy flow ; the enumeration of places is 
dry, not to be compared with x. 28. &c. ; its whole character is 
antique. All this is exaggerated assertion, and insufficient to set 
aside the authenticity of the portion before us. There is certainly a 
perceptible difference in the diction and manner ; but the antique 
air is owing to the fact that Isaiah refers to the prophecies of the 
Pentateuch respecting Moab, in Numb. xxi. 27. &c, xxiv. 17., and, 
announcing their fulfilment, assumes the manner and form of those 
old prophetic sayings. Hence arise the short sentences in which 
the discourse progresses, and the monotonous connection formed by 
the use of the particles >3 and |3"?y. On the other hand, evidences 
of Isaiah-origin in the oracle are not wanting ; such as its dramatic 
character, as well as similarities both of manner and language. Thus 
the manner in xv. 5., xvi. 11. is the same as in Isaiah xxii. 4. With 
the archaic DWJ, outcasts, xvi. 8., compare xxvii. 13. The description 
of the vineyard and grapes in xvi. 7. &c. is similar to that in v. 1. &c. 
The commencement in xv. 1. is analogous to xxiii. 1. Compare also 
the words "V?'^ \^3, like the years of an hireling, xvi. 14., with xxi. 
16.; "(Sip WO, small and feeble, xvi. 14., Avith x. 25., xxix. 17. ; 
TQ3 n?p:, the glory is contemned, xvi. 14., with iii. 5. But we must 
refer to Drechsler, Hendewerk, Havernick, Kleinert, and Keil, for 
other particulars, remarking, that the insertion of so long a foreign 
prophecy without the writer's own elaboration of it, is without 
analogy in the prophetism of the Old Testament. It is difficult 
to fix the date of this oracle against Moab ; but the most probable 
one is the termination of Ahaz's reign. This may be inferred from 

1 Des Prophcten Jonas Orakel ueber Moab 1S30. 



842 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

the contents, which represent a number of cities that formerly be- 
longed to the part of the kingdom embraced within the ten tribes on 
the other side Jordan as possessed by Moab ; and no likelier time 
can be found for their occupation by the Moabites than after Tiglath- 
pileser had carried away the ten tribes on the other side Jordan 
(2 Kings xv. 29.), when the Moabites seized the opportunity to recover 
their old possessions north of the Arnon. Again, the 14th verse of 
the 16th chapter may refer to the time of Shalmaneser's march against 
Samaria, which probably brought at the same time the threatened 
destruction upon Moab. If this be correct, there is no reason for 
supposing the epilogue, consisting of 13th and 14th verses, to be of 
later date than Isaiah himself; since it does not say that another 
than Isaiah had formerly composed the oracle ; neither does the word 
TXIp in the 13th verse necessarily apply to a remote period, as may 
be seen from 2 Sam. xv. 34. The 13th verse means that the pro- 
phecy was not new, but had been revealed to himself, or others, 
long ago. We reject the gratuitous supposition of Henderson, that 
the postscript is the work of an inspired writer in the following 
century 1 ; as well as that of Alexander, that it was added by divine 
command in the days of Nebuchadnezzar. 2 

The prophecy respecting Aram and Ephraim (xvii. xviii.) may be 
looked upon as a connected discourse. It is regarded by Drechsler 
as belonging to the commencement of Hezekiah's reign. 3 Shalmaneser 
accomplished what is predicted of Ephraim in xvii. 3 — 6. 9., and of 
Damascus in xvii. 1. No valid reasons exist for dividing these 
chapters and so destroying their unity. 

Chapter xix. contains a prophecy against Egypt, which may be 
divided into two parts, 1 — 15. and 16 — 25. Doubts of the Isaiah- 
origin of various verses have been expressed, as though some were a 
late insertion. Thus Gesenius suspected verses 18 — 20. ; while 
Hitzig looked upon 16 — 25. as forged by Onias, the builder of the 
temple at Leontopolis, for the purpose of justifying himself in that 
step. These hypotheses need no refutation; though they have been 
carefully and triumphantly demolished by various critics, among whom 
we refer to Knobel, Drechsler, Caspari, and Havernick. Both parts 
are closely connected, the second containing references to the first ; 
as will appear on a comparison of verses 1 6. and 1 7. with 1 . &c. Verses 
19. and 20. form a contrast to 3. and 4. ; and the 17th refers back to 
the 12th. Both the ideas and language bear Isaiah's authentic impress. 
Compare, for example, WT\T\ Di»3, on that day, verses 16. 18., with 
Isa. iv. 1,2., vii. 18. 20, 21. 23. &c; HSWljl, tumult 3 shaking, verse 16., 
with x. 32., xi. 15. This word only occurs once besides in Isa., viz. 
xxx. 32. 7P nyj; ys\, to purpose a purpose against, verse 17., with verse 
12., xiv. 26., xxiii. 8, 9. ; ? "t5N, to say to, verse 18., withiv. 3., xxxii. 
5., lxi. 6., lxii. 4. &c. 

1 The book of the Prophet Isaiah, &c. &c. p. 148. 

2 The prophecies of Isaiah, earlier and later, &c. &c. p. 306., Glasgow edition. 

3 See Studien und Kriiiken for 1847, p. 857. et seqq., and Drechsler's der Prophet 
Jesaja, u. s. w. Th. 2. pp. 87. 229. 



On the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 843 

This oracle belongs to the same time as the last, i.e., to the begin- 
ning of Hezekiah's reign. Those who refer it to the time of Manasseh, 
believing that it alludes to the Egyptian dodecarchy and Psammetichus, 
as Gesenius, Grotius, Koppe, Eichhorn, Rosenmiiller, and Maurer do, 
are mistaken ; as has been shown by Knobel and Hitzig. 

Chapter xx. is confessedly authentic, and was written very soon after 
the preceding one. It relates to the same subject, Egypt and Ethiopia. 

The oracle against Babylon in xxi. 1 — 10. is usually classed with 
that in xiii. 1 — xiv. 23., and attributed to the same unknown writer, 
living towards the close of the Babylonian exile. The considerations 
advanced respecting both pieces are the same, and proceed on the 
same false view of the nature of biblical prophecy. Their authenticity, 
however, is amply attested, by the inscriptions, which cannot be 
arbitrarily rejected ; by the fact that several succeeding prophets, who 
appeared before the exile, present reminiscences and imitations of 
them ; by genuine Isaiah-ideas and linguistic peculiarities. This has 
been shown by Drechsler, Havernick, and Kleinert. Thus Hab. (i. 13.) 
calls the Chaldeans EHfi^, treacherous, from Isa. xxi. 2. Hab. ii. 1. is 
an imitation of xxi. 6. 8. In Nahum ii. 11. the phrase ri?n?n 
D^ri)p"?5? is a reminiscence of iT?n?n ''jrup -lxpp, Isa. xxi. 3. The use of 
it by Jeremiah is more definite. Compare Jer. Ii. 33. with Isa. xxi. 
10. ; 1. 2. 38., Ii. 8. 47. 52. with Isa. xxi. 9. 

The following ideas and modes of expression are peculiarly Isaiah's : 
the designation of the prophets as watchmen, xxi. 8. ; compare lii. 8., 
lvi. 10., and xxi. 11, 12.; the correspondence of xxi. 7. 9. to xxii. 6, 
7.; of xxi. 3, 4. to xxii. 4. Besides, xxi. 1 — 10. presents considerable 
points of similarity to chapters xiii. and xiv. 

The idioms of Isaiah are found in the union of T]& and 133 in xxi. 
2., with which compare xxxi. 1. and xxi v. 16. So too n-ltn for fiTn in 
xxi. 2. and xxix. 11. 

The alleged difference of description and style is insufficient to 
overthrow the positive arguments which bespeak the Isaiah-origin. 
The oracle in question should be placed soon after that in chapter 
xx., in the reign of Hezekiah. 

Chapter xxi. 11, 12., containing an oracle against Edom, and 
13 — 17. against the Arabians, also belong to the reign of Hezekiah. 

There is no reason for dividing chapter xxii. into two distinct, inde- 
pendent prophecies. Both should be taken together ; and it is ad- 
mitted that Isaiah wrote them. The first part, viz. 1 — 14. applies to 
Sennacherib's invasion of Jerusalem ; the last, 15 — 25. to Shebna. 
Gesenius, Hitzig, and De Wette refer the former to the time of Sen- 
nacherib's invasion ; but this is too late, for the attack upon Jerusalem 
is announced as future (8 — 11.). At the time of Sennacherib's ex- 
pedition against Jerusalem, the predicted elevation of Eliakim in 
place of Shebna had already taken place (xxxvi. 3. 22., xxxvii. 2.). 
Hence the two parts appear to be properly placed in chronological 
succession ; and belong to the time between Samaria's fall and Sen- 
nacherib's expedition against Judah. 

The prophecy relating to Phenicia, and especially Tyre, contained 



844 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

in chapter xxiii., has been ascribed by Eichhorn, Rosenmiiller, 
Hitzig, and Movers to a later writer than Isaiah; the last-named 
critic specifying Jeremiah as the author. 1 This view is connected 
with that interpretation of the oracle which finds the siege of Tyre 
by Nebuchadnezzar the main subject. According to Hitzig, a Chal- 
dean dominion could not be spoken of before 625 b. c. ; and therefore 
it is argued that the oracle must be later than Isaiah, since in the 
critic's opinion there was no foretelling of future events. But it 
appears to us that none of the arguments advanced against the Isaiah - 
authorship are sufficient to overthrow it, though it cannot be denied 
that the style in 1 — 14. is weak and generally inferior to Isaiah's, so 
much so that Ewald ascribes it to a contemporary or disciple of Isaiah. 

Many words and phrases are Isaiah's, as Dbil and b^i in verse 4. as in 
i. 2. ; nvfyil, verses 7.*12., as in v. 14.,xxii. 2., xxxii. 13.; ntpj IT, verse 
11., as in v. 25. Compare verse 13. with xxxii. 14., xvii. 1. D3i2 *p*p, 
xxiii. 7., occurs in xxxvii. 26. The union of A3 n?in5 in the 12th 
verse appears in xxxvii. 22., xlvii. 1. ?j?. n in the 9th verse occurs 
in viii. 23. The 9th verse may also be compared with iv. 2., xiii. 19. 

Admitting its authenticity, which has been well defended by 
Knobel 2 , and its integrity, which has been defended by Gesenius, 
Havernick, and Drechsler — for there is no reason why verses 15 — 
18. should be separated from the rest — we are inclined to refer the 
prophecy to the siege of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar. The two prin- 
cipal objections to the view of those who refer it to the siege of Tyre 
by Shalmaneser are, that the Chaldees are expressly mentioned in the 
13th verse, and that the attempt of Shalmaneser upon Tyre was 
abortive. To this it is answered, that in the 13th verse the Chal- 
deans appear not as independent conquerors, as they do in the time 
of Habakkuk and Jeremiah, but as dependent on the Assyrians, or 
auxiliaries to them. But the phrase TH &6 Dj; points to an inde- 
pendent existence and power on the part of the Chaldeans. The 
other objection lies, it must be admitted, equally against the siege 
of Tyre by Nebuchadnezzar ; for, though that lasted thirteen years 
and the result is not mentioned in history, it is manifest, from 
the next siege by Alexander the Great, that the city was not entirely 
destroyed, as Isaiah intimates. Not, indeed, till the middle ages did 
this take place. Hence there is reason for the view of Alexander, 
who regards the prophecy as generic, not specific — a panoramic pic- 
ture of the downfall of Tyre from the beginning to the end of the 
destroying process, with particular allusion to the siege by Nebuchad- 
nezzar. Chapter xxvi. of Ezekiel, where the prophecy is resumed 
and manifestly applied to the Chaldeans, shows that this is the view 
of it here intended. 

The generic prophecy in chapters xxiv. — xxvii., whose interpreta- 
tion is so difficult, has been ascribed to some other than Isaiah on 
account of its contents, certain peculiar doctrinal representations 
(xxvi. 19., xxiv. 21., xxv. 8.), the mode of writing which has paro- 

1 In the Tubingen Quartalschrift, H. 3. p. 506. et seqq. 

2 Der Prophet Iesaia, u. s. w. p. 161. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 845 

nomasias, reminiscences, reduplication, tautological parallelism, and 
a number of parallels to other pieces of the book whose authenticity 
is also denied. Hence the oracle is supposed to have been written 
later than the time of Isaiah, either during the Babylonish exile or 
afterwards. 

Here opinions have been very diverse respecting the meaning of 
the prophecy, a fact which has influenced the judgment of critics in 
rejecting its authenticity. We believe that it is connected with the 
preceding prophecies. It forms a summary and comprehensive close 
to them. The prophet takes the judgments about to be inflicted on 
the single peoples, races, and individuals of the apostate world, and 
weaves them together into one general description of a great judgment 
upon the collective enemies of God. Out of this universal visitation 
of the antichristian world, the scattered children of God are redeemed, 
and the divine kingdom erected in glory and happiness upon the ruins 
of its enemies. The general character of the description excludes all 
specific application. The prophet speaks of a country and of confu- 
sion in it, as well as of one or more cities, without any determinate 
marks by which they can be identified ; of enemies, violent and 
tyrannical rulers, whose downfall is the subject of exultation, and 
who cannot be specifically ascertained. In like manner, he mentions 
cities and high walls, fortifications and strongholds, to be thrown down 
and levelled with the ground, without any nearer description of them. 
This favours the hypothesis that all the enemies and opponents of the 
kingdom of God which were described individually in the preceding 
chapters (xiii. — xxiii.) are here comprehended in a group. Accord- 
ingly, the entire apostate world, not excepting the theocracy itself, is 
visited with confusion and distress ; and the salvation which succeeds 
is represented as extending to all nations of the earth, so that the 
scattered remnant, saved out of all countries, shall glorify God ; and 
the exiles in Assyria and Egypt returning, shall bow down to 
Jehovah in the holy mountain, in Jerusalem. 

That the prophecy is an authentic production of Isaiah may be 
inferred from its position in relation to the individual oracles that 
precede, and its similar tenour to theirs. Thus Moab, the leading 
enemy of the theocracy, reappears, the prophet predicting its ignomi- 
nious and total destruction, in conformity with the description of the 
same hostile power in chapters xv. and xvi. In like manner, Egypt 
and Assyria reappear, as representing the antitheocratic powers of the 
the world. (Comp. xxvii. 13. with xi. 11. 16.) The rooting out of 
idolatry is described as the destruction of altars, images of Astarte 
and the sun. All this is in the manner of Isaiah,- as Ewald himself 
admits. 1 

Besides, it exhibits numerous images, phrases, and expressions, 
characteristic of Isaiah, such as the comparison with a drunken 
man (xxiv. 20. like xix. 14.) with a hammock (xxiv. 20. like i. 8., 
where the same word is used), the figure of stormy beating rain 
(xxv. 4. like iv. 6. and xxviii. 2.), of bringing forth wind and chaff 

1 Die Propheten des alten Bundles, vol. ii. p. 507. 



846 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

(xxvi. 17, 18. like xxxiii. 11.), the comparison of the theocratic 
people with a vineyard (xxvii. 2. &c. like v. 7., iii. 14.) In like 
manner, the form of the thanksgiving ode in which the people cele- 
brate the deliverance they experienced resembles that of the ode in 
chapter xii. Characteristic of Isaiah are the expressions, " for the 
Lord hath spoken" (xxiv. 3., xxv. 8., compared with i. 2. 20., xxi. 
17., xxii. 25., xl. 3., lviii. 14.) ; " in the midst of the earth " (xxiv. 13. 
compared with v. 8., vi. 12., vii. 22., x. 23., xix. 19.), a phrase peculiar 
to Isaiah among the prophets ; the union of "Vp^ and n$>, the latter 
occurring only in Isaiah (xxvii. 4., compare v. 6., vii. 23., ix. 17., x. 
17.); ™?0, sun, and ru;i?, moon (xxiv. 23., comp. xxx. 26.); BJ 
joined to niiT. (xxvi. 4., comp. xii. 2.) ; l^J? (xxiv. 6., comp. x. 25., 
xvi. 14., xxix. 17.), -inn (xxiv. 10., comp. xxix. 21., xxxiv. 11.), DT^J? 
(xxiv. 8., comp. xxii. 2., xxxii. 13.), ?HV (xxiv. 14., comp. x. 30., xii. 
6., liv. I.) 1 

Later prophets have also made use of this oracle ; as xxiv. 1. by 
Nahum ii. 11. ; xxiv. 2. 4. by Jeremiah xxiii. 10, 11. ; xxiv. 17, 18. 
by Jeremiah xlviii. 43, 44. ; xxvi. 21. by Ezekiel xxiv. 8. ; xxvii. 1. 
by Ezekiel xxix. 3. 

The time when the prophecy was composed was immediately after 
those which precede. 

The prophecies in xxviii. — xxxiii. refer to the same subject, viz. the 
Assyrian invasion, and are nearly of the same date, i.e. the first four- 
teen years of Hezekiah's reign. Chapter xxviii. announces the de- 
struction of Jerusalem as impending (comp. verses 1 — 4.); while in 
xxxiii. 7, 8. the invasion of Sennacherib appears to have already 
taken place, and is represented as present. Accordingly, the former 
chapter dates before the sixth year of Hezekiah ; the latter in the 
fourteenth year of the same king. The intermediate chapters fall 
between these times. Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Caspari, have at- 
tempted minutely to discover the years and seasons when the chapters 
were composed ; but to little purpose, as has been shown by Umbreit, 
Havernick, and Keil. The authenticity of these prophecies is almost 
universally allowed by the recent critics. Ewald, indeed, supposes 
chapter xxxiii. to have proceeded from a disciple of Isaiah ; but his 
representations are highly arbitrary and wholly untenable. 2 

Chapters xxxiv. and xxxv. have been usually dated in the time 
of the Babylonish captivity, and therefore pronounced not to be 
Isaiah's. This conclusion is deduced from the analogy they present 
to other pieces supposed to have been written in the exile, as well as 
the parallels in Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Obadiah; the burning hatred 
manifested against Edom ; the exaggerated and bombastic character 
of the descriptions ; the later ideas and style. Accordingly, such 
passages as xxxiv. 4. in relation to xiii. 10.; 11. &c. to xiii, 20. &c. ; 
xxxv. 1. &c. to xxxv. 12.; xl. 5. to lx. 1., lxii. 11. ; 3. &c. toxl. 1. &c. 
9. &c; 5. &c. to xiii. 16.; 6. &c. to xliii. 19. &c, xlviii. 21., xlix. 10. 
&c. ; 8. to xl. 3. &c, xlix. 11., lxii. 10.; 10. to li. 11. are adduced. 

1 Comp. Drcchsler, Theil. 2. p. 224. et segq. 

2 See Havernick's Ejnleit. u. s. w., ii. 2. p. 141. et seqq., and Caspari's Beitrage zur 
Einleitung in d. Buch Iesaia, u. s. w. p. 25. 



On the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 847 

This argument stands or falls with the assumption of the impossibility 
of the prophet throwing himself into a later period than his own, like 
that of the Babylonian captivity ; of the correctness of the assumption 
that chapters xl. — lxvi. did not proceed from Isaiah himself; and of 
other smaller pieces in the first division being also unauthentic. As 
to the revengeful malice against Edom and the heathen generally, all 
that is implied in such descriptions as xxxiv. 2, 3. 5. &c, xxxv. 8., is 
the opposition of the antichristian world to the kingdom of God and 
its consequent destruction. Edom is not to be taken singly as a dis- 
tinct nation. It is the representative of the church's enemies. And 
surely it is right and proper that the prophet, full of the Spirit of 
God, should point out the fearful destruction impending over all 
powers and peoples which are the persevering enemies of Jehovah 
and his people. With relation to the later superstitions, foreign 
notions, &c. &c, the allegation rests on preconceived ideas and pecu- 
liar interpretations which' may well be questioned. New representa- 
tions and images, not found in the older books, may surely have been 
advanced by Isaiah, provided he be reckoned a true prophet. The 
alleged later diction and words cannot be relied on as an argument ; 
since the forms and terms are so few compared with such as are truly 
Isaiah's. In favour of the Isaiah-origin of these chapters is their 
close connection with the preceding ones, and the fact that they have 
been used by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Zephaniah. So far from the 
parallels with Jeremiah and Ezekiel favouring their late origin, they 
speak for an earlier one, since the two latter prophets, as well as 
Zephaniah, copied the ideas, images, and language of the chapters 
before us. It has been alleged, indeed, by Ewald and Umbreit, that 
the writer of chapter xxxiv. had before his mind the substance 
of the cognate chapters in Jeremiah and Ezekiel ; but this reverses 
the true process. Still less probable is the hypothesis of Movers and 
Hitzig, that the passages in Jeremiah 1. and li., which are parallel to 
Isaiah xxxiv., were interpolated in the former. 

Both chapters, xxxiv. and xxxv., form one connected discourse, 
and should not be separated. They may be dated at the time of 
Sennacherib's invasion ; and are general rather than specific. All the 
enemies of the theocracy are to be fearfully visited ; after which a 
blessed era to the people of God commences. Edom represents »Zion's 
collective enemies — the antichristian powers of the world ge- 
nerally. The figures employed are bold and striking ; the language 
indefinite. Hence the prophecy cannot be restricted to any one 
subject. It was not meant to be so applied. It is vague and 
shadowy, referring to no particular event or series of events. Rather 
does it show the anticipations and foreshadowings of a mind partially 
enlightened of the Spirit — so partially and imperfectly as to be con- 
fined within the range of vague generalities respecting the kingdom 
of God on earth. 

Chapters xxxvi. — xxxix. form an historical appendix to the preceding 
discourses of Isaiah, giving an account of the invasion of the Assyrian 
army under Sennacherib, and its total overthrow, Hezekiah's sickness 
and recovery, and the message of the Babylonian king to him. The 



848 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

consequences of the annihilation of the Assyrian army to the theo- 
cracy generally, and to king Hezekiah in particular, are thus related. 
The same narrative is found in 2 Kings xviii. 13 — 20. xix. with the 
exception of Hezekiah's song of thanksgiving (Isa. xxxviii. 9 — 20.). 
What relation the two accounts bear to one another is matter of 
conjecture rather than evidence. 

Some suppose that the text in Isaiah is more original than that in 
the Kings. Such is the view of Grotius, Vitringa, Paulus, and 
Hendewerk. On the other hand, Eichhorn, Gesenius, Maurer, regard 
the books of the Kings as the source whence the later writer in 
Isaiah's collection derived his account. Others again, as Koppe, 
Rosenmuller, Hitzig, Umbreit, Knobel, De Wette, Keil, Ewald, 
Havernick, believe that both drew from a third and older source, 
probably from the Chronicle of Judah often quoted in the books of 
Kings and Chronicles. 

We believe that neither the narrative in 2 Kings was taken from 
that in Isaiah, nor vice verm. The former contains various particulars 
not found in Isaiah ; while Isaiah has more than 2 Kings, such as the 
thanksgiving song of Hezekiah and the notice of Sennacherib's 
murder. Comparing the two texts, it appears, that the one in 
2 Kings is more correct, complete, and original than the other. Its 
critical goodness is much superior to that in Isaiah ; while marks of 
abridgment and careful elaboration are more apparent in it. At the 
same time, the text in Isaiah is sometimes more correct and original 
than that in the Kings. Hence we are led to the conclusion, that 
both were derived from a common source ; the narrative in 2 Kings 
being nearer to the original in form and diction than that in Isaiah, 
where greater freedom has been used. There can be little doubt 
that this third narrative was more copious than either now extant. 
In 2 Chron. xxxii. 32. we read that the vision of Isaiah, in which the 
acts of Hezekiah were written, was incorporated with the book of 
the Kings of Judah and Israel. Now this vision of Isaiah, or the 
part of it containing the life of Hezekiah, cannot be identified with 
the book of Isaiah, or chapters xxxvi. — xxxix., because the relation 
subsisting between the extract from the Chronicle of Judah in 
2 Kings xviii. — xx. and the chapters before us forbids it. It was 
rather a biography of Hezekiah and Ahaz (2 Chron. xxvi. 22.), per- 
haps a history of contemporaneous events, which the prophet wrote, 
and which was incorporated into the Chronicles of Judah and Israel. 
The writer of the books of Kings extracted from it his narrative of 
Hezekiah with historical fidelity and accuracy, but not literally. 
The narrative in those books, as it now stands, did not proceed from 
Isaiah himself. It is substantially his, because it is taken from what 
he himself composed. As the compiler of the books of Kings did 
not make the extract verbatim, but altered it somewhat, Isaiah can be 
no more than the remote, not the immediate and direct writer of it in its 
present form. What then is to be said of the narrative in Isa. xxxvi. 
— xxxix.? Did Isaiah himself write it? Are the variations from 
the first copy his own ? When his prophecies were being collected, 
did he take the contents of his previous production and incorporate 



On the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 849 

them, giving such form and shape to them as seemed suitable to his 
purpose ? So Keil, Alexander, and others imagine. But there are 
circumstances adverse to this view. The account of Sennacherib's 
murder (xxxvii. 38., comp. 2 Kings xix. 37.), which presupposes the 
thing as having already happened, can hardly have preceded the death 
of Isaiah. As nearly as possible, the death of the Assyrian monarch 
was 696 B.C. Again, the use of rvi-lfV. in xxxvi. 11. 13. shows a 
later writer than Isaiah, since the term could not have been common 
till long after the destruction of the ten tribes, leaving Judah alone. 
Alexander does not answer this consideration when he says, " it is 
altogether probable that from the time of the great schism between 
Ephraim and Judah, the latter began to call the national language 
by its own distinctive name ; " l for mere assertion is not reply. 

In xl. — lxvi. we have a series of connected discourses which cannot 
well be dissevered. That they proceed from one author, are pervaded 
by the same spirit, and exhibit the same style, has been commonly 
admitted, since Gesenius undertook to show their unity. The subject 
is the same throughout: and the mode of treating it uniform. But 
the authorship and age have been disputed. Since the commencement 
of the higher criticism in Germany, the chapters in question have 
been commonly ascribed to an unknown prophet living towards the 
end of the Babylonian captivity. This opinion has been advanced by 
so many eminent judges of Hebrew diction, and that with unhesi- 
tating confidence, that it appears almost presumptuous to dispute it. 
But it has not met with uniform acceptance among good critics them- 
selves. Though advocated by Justi, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Gesenius, 
Hitzig, Knobel, Maurer, Ewald, De TVette, Umbreit, Hendewerk, it 
has been combated by Beckhaus, Greve, Moller, Jahn, Dereser, 
Kleinert, Hengstenberg, Havernick, Keil, Henderson, Alexander. 
The following are the arguments against the authenticity, as stated 
with great particularity by Knobel. 

1. The discourse of the prophet turns altogether on the redemption 
of Israel from exile, which was effected by the Medo-Persians under 
Cyrus, through the overthrow of the Babylonian empire. But 
Isaiah lived upwards of 100 years before the Babylonian exile ; and 
as every prophet attaches himself to the historical relations of his 
own time, the author can only have lived during the captivity. 
Other prophets of the period to which Isaiah belongs never predict a 
Babylonian exile ; much less a deliverance from it. And suppose 
Isaiah to have taken an ecstatic leap out of the Assyrian into the 
Chaldean period, how did he come to predict release from the Baby- 
lonian exile, without having first predicted the exile itself? 

2. The exile is a present thing with the author ; while the destruc- 
tion of Judah is past and the better time future. Jehovah had been 
long angry with his people ; Judah is lying waste ; the Jewish cities, 
with Jerusalem and the temple, are heaps of ruins ; the prophet 
complains of the oppression of tyrants and the delay of redemption, 
and often announces that the freedom and restoration of Israel are 

1 Earlier and later Prophecies of Isaiah, p. 512. 
VOL. II. 3 I 



850 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

just at hand; lie even adduces the steps which Jehovah had already 
made towards redemption through Cyrus, and promises farther ar- 
rangements for that end. All this is future to Isaiah ; nothing of it 
present or past. 

3. The author shows an accurate acquaintance with the relations of 
the oriental world at the time of the exile. He points to disunion 
among the Babylonians ; calls Cyrus by name as the subduer of the 
Babylonian power ; refers to his past victories ; to his conduct towards 
the Egyptians ; to the western peoples united under Croesus against 
him ; to his victory over these ; and generally follows Cyrus's under- 
takings with his discourses. Of all this Isaiah could suspect, much less 
know, nothing. To the appeal to a peculiar divine revelation on such 
points is opposed the fact, that such revelation belongs to the depart- 
ment of the religious and moral, without extending to notices of a 
historical and political nature. And if God opened up to the prophet 
these less important things; how could he leave him in error re- 
garding the far more important restoration of the theocracy, which 
did not happen, as the writer expected and announced, ex. gr. in 
chapters lx. lxi. ? 

4. In like manner the writer knows the relations of the exiles 
down to the most minute particulars. Thus he is perfectly acquainted 
with the parties among those exiles, ex. gr. the idolatrous, who make 
to themselves images, sacrifice children in groves and valleys, present 
offerings in gardens and on bricks, sit in graves and hollows, eat 
swine's flesh, persecute the pious, &c. ; the godless who intrigue, and 
execute violent and bloody deeds, so that right and righteousness 
have disappeared from the midst of the exiles ; the false, who are ad- 
dicted to selfishness and riot; those worshippers of Jehovah who fast 
to show him honour, and while they seek salvation do yet violate the 
sabbath and abuse their dependants ; the heathen among the exiles, 
who fear to be shut out from salvation ; the dispirited, who imagine 
that they are forsaken of Jehovah, and do not believe in redemption ; 
the pious, who flee to Jehovah for restoration but are persecuted ; 
those occupied with a plan to erect a temple to the Lord in Babylonia, 
&c. None but an exile could write thus, not Isaiah, who especially 
could not predict that the exile would not better the people, but 
must rather have hoped the reverse, as all the pre-exile prophets. 

5. The author speaks almost constantly of the exiles in the second 
person, directing his words, sometimes to the pious, sometimes to 
the godless, sometimes to the people generally. He puts ques- 
tions to them, encourages them not to be afraid, censures and chides, 
addresses long and severe lectures to them, admonishes them to 
return to Jehovah and to mend their ways, calls upon them to for- 
sake Babylonia, &c. Such discourses are unsuitable in the mouth of 
Isaiah, who, living 150 years earlier, could merely prophesy of the 
exiles ; they are applicable only to a prophet living among the exiles, 
and therefore sometimes speaking of the people in the first person plural. 
The writer mentions himself as being sent to the exiles to comfort 
them ; he has spoken to them since the first appearance of Cyrus ; 
his prophecies have already come to pass in part ; he will not be 



On the Booh of the Prophet Isaiah. 851 

silent till Jehovah restore Jerusalem ; he appoints others also with 
the same object ; he finds little faith, and is maltreated by the 
ungodly, who deride him daring his addresses. These are statements 
which none except an exile-prophet could make of himself. 

6. The writer complains of the continuance of misery and delay of 
deliverance ; calls upon Jehovah to subdue the oppressors ; and in a 
long prayer asks him ardently and beseechingly to accomplish de- 
liverance at the last. So could not Isaiah do, but rather one living 
in the exile ; for the importunate request for deliverance from a 
distress which had not yet come, and was to continue for a time 
as a righteous punishment, would have been entirely out of place. 

7. Jeremiah once fell into great distress because he had predicted 
Judah's overthrow by the Babylonians ; but he does not appeal in 
his defence to these discourses, which presuppose the most melan- 
choly condition of Juclah. Hence the discourses did not exist in his 
time, and are not Isaiah's. 

8. There is a great difference of spirit and views between Isaiah 
and our author. The latter has the most abundant expectations, 
ex. gr. respecting the return home, the new heavens and the new 
earth which Jehovah's splendour would illumine like the sun, the 
glory and riches of the new Jerusalem, the great age of the Jews 
which was to be expected, and their relation to the Gentiles. All 
this is foreign to the more natural manner of Isaiah, and attests 
at the same time the later period ; for which too the designation of 
Juclah and Jerusalem as a sanctuary, the affixing of value to the 
observance of the sabbath, and the idea of a God who gives himself 
little concern about the earth, are evidences. Many favourite things 
of our author's, ex. gr. combating the gods with arguments, and an 
apology for Jehovah as the only God, the proof of Jehovah's God- 
head derived from his prophecies, the servant of Jehovah, and the 
idea of a vicarious endurance of punishment, do not appear in Isaiah. 
Other particulars are in contradiction to Isaiah, as the expectation of 
a theocracy without a visible king ; whereas Isaiah cannot dispense 
with a king. 

9. The manner of the writer is different from Isaiah's. It is true 
that he writes like Isaiah in a very animated, fiery, and lively strain, 
but much more flowing and smooth, as also more copious and prolix; 
he repeats a great deal, and certain formulas frequently recur, ex. gr. 
/ am Jehovah, and there is none other ; I am the first and the last ; to 
whom iviil ye compare me ? I raised up, called Cyrus ; Who hath de- 
clared from the beginning, prophesied as I? I have declared, said it of old; 

fear not, I am with thee. To this head belong numerous appositions, 
ex. gr. Jehovah who stretched out the heavens, spread forth the earth ; 
who formed Israel, created &c. servant Jacob, whom I have chosen ; 
created, formed, &c. The frequent designations of Jehovah as Israel's 
creator (K!)3), former (^T\ redeemer (583), saviour (SWift), having 
mercy upon (Qrnp), comforter (Dili??), do not once appear in Isaiah. In 
like manner, it is peculiar to the writer to represent Jerusalem as a 
person, the people as the wife of Jehovah, and Jehovah as the father 
of the Israelites ; to double words for the sake of emphasis, ex. gr. 

3 I 2 



852 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

I, I ; they, they ; behold, behold ; and frequently to apply personification 
and prosopopoeia. All this is either wholly foreign to Isaiah, or 
foreign in the manner that appears here ; while representations like 
lvii. 7. &c. are quite impossible in him. 

10. The usus loquendi of the writer is quite different from Isaiah's. 
To his peculiarities belong W$, to sprout, i. e. to arise ; H~}\>, to preach ; 
H3"l n*§, to break out into exultation ; tifip, 3^n, rhy, lb by 13% t3BSJ>p, 
the relic/ion of Jehovah ; py$, prosperity, salvation ; ngnv, the same ; D$?n, 
the inhabitants of the earth ; |?K3, 09^13, as nothing ; "i£>3-?3, all flesh ; 
"13^1 IV, wasting and destruction, the use of the adjective and participle 
as a substantive neuter, mostly in the plural feminine, ex. gr. ntob"^, 
ancient things ; i"n3tJ'&0, former things ; nisi, great things ; H'nv^, secret 
things; rriEJhD., new things ; FiVn'H, tilings to come ; niN3, the same. These 
expressions appear for the most part in our author, and characterise 
him as a very peculiar writer. Most important are the linguistic 
elements, betraying a later time. The writer uses a number of ex- 
pressions which are found either in his composition only, or in the 
later books ; and which must be explained chiefly by the Aramaean, 
ex. gr. 7^4' t° oe unclean; W|, to grope; riQb, to span; n|3, to name; 
^HD, to strike ; nrip, to spread out ; nip, to pray to ; pK>3, to kindle ; D^J, to 
breathe; nj?3, tocry; niX, the same; T\y_^, to boiv, stretch ; nnj?, to kindle; JV'n, 
repentance; T'V, idol; HTpV, veil; K'Sn, dirt; 33iB>, apostate; "Vflpn, without; 
D\33, to be averse ; the formulas, ivhat dost thou ; peoples and tongues : 
D^Jp, princes, is a Persian word. In like manner, our author em- 
ploys a number of words in significations and relations borrowed in 
part from Aramsean, appearing only in later authors so far as they 
are not peculiar to him, and all betraying a great advance in the 
language, thus showing a later period, as, "Wn, to kindle ; pg>X, to desig- 
nate; 103, to try; J>p3, to hatch; KHO, to restore; jn.3, to make priestly ; 7-13, 
to measure; T?in causatively, to cause to beget; Win, to profit; M» tran- 
sitive, to cause to dissolve; Evpn, to bring forth ; nn3, to shine, be hot ; 
noy, to appear; JJJ3, to meet; nns, to be loosed; !"IFIS intransitive (xlviii. 8., 
lx. 11.) ; P37 1 , to lay ; ItTp, to set, establish; J>*n intransitive (xlii. 3.) ; 
linx, succession of time ; >13, stock of a tree; VU, race, generally; |iB0, riches; 
nj, a strange god; *?n, suffering, generally; f?n, employment, affair, busi- 
ness; na^D, shame; l*vb, messenger, prophet; \3ptp,poor; 1J7, lawgiver ; ?Pf, 
a molten image; X3¥, distress; \\\,if;^T)l, exceedingly; *in^3, together; ?y 
for ? ; 7y3, z'w proportion to. The same holds good of word-forms, 
ex. gr. the Aramasisms *J!>^8 and ^.DD. None but the author has 
a Pihel of 183, a Hiphil denominative of ns, a Hithpael of 119*, nns, 
and nj?t?, as well as the nominal forms rvPSX. in the plural, n^iy, 
for n^y, nisy£, nrnyo, nrn?, and nj^ate. Other words he has in com- 
mon with the later writers, ex. gr. the Pahal of ®~}\> and the Pilel of 
n-1B>, as also >riiK for >W, "SJP5 for n?pD, 3ny : 2, and the plurals rfotoB, 
criiD, D*»7iy« Many words are to be explained by the Arabic which 
may have had an influence on the Hebrew of the exiles in the inter- 
course of the Arabians with the Babylonians ; for example, n-1E>?3, un- 
fruitful; CI-HD, uneven places ; ntn, to dream ; "I3n, toknoio; Dgn, to shut 



On the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 853 

up ; rVQyin, bands ; nvj, moisture ; H-iy, to moisten or refresh ; rny, to 
cry ; ?3"K>, iram ; 2}^, mirage. l 

Such is a summary of the argument against the genuineness of the 
last twenty-seven chapters presented by Knobel. Doubtless the 
critic imagines that by collecting the various details accumulated by 
previous writers, and then drawing them out in lengthened array 
with systematic minuteness, he has strengthened his cause ; but 
whatever it has obtained in extent, it has lost under his hands in 
force. We shall now make a few general observations suggested by 
his first six statements. 

It appears to us, that incorrect views of the nature of biblical 
prophecy lie at the basis of much that is here set forth. The pro- 
phetic gift did not exclude the transference of the possessor in spirit 
into the future. On the contrary, a supernatural insight into futurity 
was either included in that gift, or accompanied it. Inspiration of a 
nature to comprehend some knowledge of the future is not psycho- 
logically impossible; and it should not be tacitly assumed as such. 
The prophets were not confined to their own times. Their vision 
stretched beyond contemporary events and influences into remote 
periods. Hence we have no sympathy with such as virtually or 
plainly deny the ability of the prophetic order to glance at the 
future, or to declare events still in the womb of time. 

It is a mistake to suppose that the entire discourse turns upon the 
deliverance of Israel from the Babylonish exile. The writer does 
not take a firm historical stand-point in the captivity. Had he lived 
at the time supposed, he would have described things very differently. 
It is true that Knobel and his fellow-critics endeavour to show a 
minute delineation of historical circumstances and parties relating to 
the captives in Babylon, favourable to the assumption of actual con- 
verse with them ; but in representing the exact acquaintance of the 
writer with peculiarities in the situation of the exiles, much incorrect 
interpretation is given. Or, if it be not incorrect, it is one-sided, 
because general descriptions are appropriated and restricted to parti- 
cular things which they were not meant to designate specifically. 
The radical error committed by the opponents of the authenticity, is 
the supposition that the chapters in cpaestion depict the deliverance 
of the Israelites from Babylon, and nothing else, except what imme- 
diately bears on that event. All their exegesis rests upon this hypo- 
thesis, and is moulded by it most injuriously. Such exegesis is far 
too narrow. It cramps the poetic delineations of the prophet, by 
forcing them into the one crucible of actual history, where they resem - 
ble prosaic details and countenance the opinion of their being drawn 
from actual observation. The prophets of the Old Testament deal, 
for the most part, in generalities. Their descriptions do not descend 
into minute particulars or events. Bather do they embrace a broad 
outline. Nor are Isaiah's discourses dissimilar. They do not depict 
specific events, circumstances, or persons, but move within a wide 
sphere, and take a wide range. The contents of the prophecy 

1 Der Prophet Iesaia, Einleitung, p. sxiii. et seqq. 
3 I 3 



854 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

before us are in a great measure ideal. The stand-point of the 
prophet is ideal. He takes his position in the future. The time of the 
exile is that into which he carries his view so completely as that he 
seems to live and act in it. But his stand-point is not historical. 
He is merely transported in spirit to the period of captivity; absorb- 
ingly so, forgetting almost that he is not actually there. Accordingly 
the traits are ideal and spiritual; the delineations general. The 
exile is a time in which Jehovah would reveal his omnipotence and 
Godhead over the false gods of the heathen, by the overthrow of 
Babylon and its gods, as well as by the redemption and glorification of 
his people Israel. There are no historical details respecting the down- 
fall of Babylon, such as are found in Jeremiah. The return of Israel 
from the captivity is not described in definite traits. It is true that 
Cyrus is mentioned by name ; but he is not represented as the king 
of Persia. He is an oriental hero raised up by Jehovah to execute 
His purposes respecting the Chaldeans ; and the mode in which he 
is spoken of corresponds with the ideal position of the prophet. In 
like manner, when the writer addresses the people reproached and 
complaining in Babylon, presents Jerusalem and the cities of Judah 
as destroyed, the land desolate, the Chaldeans in the height of their 
power, he does it in a manner so ideally poetical as to show that he 
did not live with the people in exile, but was merely carried out 
in spirit into the time when these things should actually exist. In 
conformity with this, what is prophesied of Israel's redemption from 
Babylon and their return to Zion, the rebuilding of Jerusalem and 
of the cities of Judah, partakes largely of an ideal character, so that 
it were absurd to limit it to the literal return of the exiles into their 
own country through the intervening wilderness, to the building up of 
old ruins and the restoration of the cities destroyed by the Chaldeans. 
The literal return from Babylon, and the local changes immediately 
following it in Jerusalem and Judea, form but a small item in the 
delineations of the prophet. The merely historical is subordinated to 
the spiritual and ideal. Had the author lived towards the end of the 
exile, among the enthralled Jews in Babylon, the historical circum- 
stances which make up the ground of the prophetic picture would 
not have been what they are ; but would have centred in the appear- 
ance of Cyrus and the relations of that particular period. Instead 
of this, the great doings of God towards his people under Moses 
and Joshua form the basis whence a glowing picture is spread out 
of the redemption of Israel, and its return to the sacred land, a 
redemption so glorious as to outshine former manifestations of the 
divine power. 

What then, it may be asked, is the subject of the prophecy before 
us ? Alexander answers, that it is " neither the Egyptian nor the 
Babylonian bondage, nor deliverance from either, but the whole con- 
dition, character, and destiny of Israel, as the chosen people, and the 
church of the Old Testament." 1 This reply is scarcely satisfactory. 
The chief historical subject is certainly the deliverance of Israel from 
Babylon, and restoration to their own land. This, however, is set 

1 Earlier and later Prophecies of Isaiah, p. 569. 



On the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 855 

forth in a peculiar way. The prophet sees it but dimly. Hence he 
describes it in very indefinite language. And inasmuch as it was 
an important event in the history of the Old Testament church, he 
surrounds and envelopes it with ideal hopes and anticipations of a 
better condition of the church of God, of a greater deliverer than 
Cyrus, a more satisfying atonement for sin than the sufferings of the 
pious part of the nation, a brighter manifestation of the divine power 
than was seen in any past deliverance from the oppressor. As the 
prophet's notions were vague, so are his descriptions. In looking 
into the future, the spirit which was in him led him to employ very 
indefinite and poetical language, the force of which he did not per- 
ceive. He had faint foreshadowings of the church's future. His 
language can never be fastened down to " the whole condition, cha- 
racter, and destiny, of Israel as the chosen people." It should not 
be so confined, because it was not so intended. Its peculiar cha- 
racter exhibits its capability of being applied to certain conditions of 
the church. In this way it may admit of various fulfilments, and is 
especially realised in the New Testament church. But it does not 
describe the state of that church continuously, because it is not meant 
for a formal or systematic account of any one phase, or of all the 
phases together. Certain things connected with Israel, the Old 
Testament Israel and the New, are set forth in language vague and 
indefinite — the expression of the prophet's gropings and hopes — linked 
to and suggested by the future deliverance of the Jews from 
Babylon. 1 

Were it at all necessary to show the psychological possibility 
of prophetic foresight, and the probability of Isaiah's taking his 
ideal stand-point in the future, we might adduce various considera- 
tions tending to the result that ideas similar to those enunciated by 
Isaiah respecting the future of the theocracy were current in his 
time. They were not wholly new then. The prophet had only to 
link his own anticipations to such as were already diffused among his 
order, or the pious portion of the people. Thus Micah predicted 
the deportation of Judah to Babylon, and their deliverance (iv. 10.). 
The very mode in which Isaiah announces to king Hezekiak the 
carrying away of all his treasures and sons to Babylon, as Avell as the 
manner in which the monarch receives the information (xxxix. 6 — 8.), 
show that the idea was not new. Besides, other prophets are trans- 
ported in spirit into the future, describing it as present, such as 
Hosea xiv. 2. &c. In Micah iv. 10., the prophet addresses the Jewish 
people in the Babylonian exile. So, also, in vii. 7. 11., the same 
stand-point in the exile is assumed. 

These observations may assist the reader in seeing how much 
Knobel, and those whom he follows, have mistaken the import of the 
last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah. By virtually rejecting prophetic 
foresight, and narrowing the discourse to the deliverance from Babylon 
with the accompanying events and influences, they prepare the w T ay 
for a denial of its authenticity. By making the descriptions specific 
and definite, they render the opinion that the writerlived in the exile, 

1 Comp. Ewald's Die Propheten des alten Bundes, vol. i. pp. 27, 28. 
3i 4 



856 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

and addressed contemporaries, much more plausible. But the prophet, 
looking into the future, sees beyond the people's deliverance from 
Babylon, and their return to Jerusalem. That is a mere key-note 
to his inspired musings. He launches forth, with bold flight, into 
the future destinies of the church, — perceives a suffering Mediator 
expiating the sins of the people, — indulges in bright hopes, paints 
ideal scenes, and gives expression to comprehensive aspirations. 
Whatever ideas he himself attached to the words employed — and 
we do not imagine those ideas to have assumed a specific form, or 
to have had a specific reference in his mind — it is certain that he 
looked beyond the deliverance from Babylon and the restoration of 
the Jews at that time to a more glorious era, which was merely pre- 
figured by the other ; when the Messianic hopes of the oppressed and 
suffering people should find their consummation. His discourse is 
not connected or consecutive ; it moves onward, without advancing 
much beyond where it commenced. The theme is the same, treated 
somewhat variously in different parts. It does not receive a gradual 
and progressive development under the hands of the prophet, because 
it is apparent that his views of the future church were vague and 
dim. The spirit which was in him did not point to any particular 
state of Israel at a particular time, nor unfold the peculiar work- 
ings of Providence at a marked crisis of history. On the contrary, 
the traits are universal ; depicting prosperity and adversity, unbelief 
and faith, apostasy and obedience, so that they apply to the church or 
to individuals in all times. Whether the writer meant them to be 
thus applied is doubtful. We suppose he did not. He had no clear 
thinking on the subject. 

The difference of manner between the author of these last chap- 
ters and Isaiah cannot be denied. Here the method is clearer, more 
flowing, more copious and comprehensive, than in the pieces of the 
first part confessedly belonging to the prophet himself; for there 
brevity and condensation prevail. In the first part, the images are 
not drawn out, as they are in the second. Frequently, they are 
only intimated, and then suddenly dropped. Hence there is an 
abruptness in the method, which contrasts with the smooth and 
easy flow of the last twenty-seven chapters. This diversity of de- 
scription in the earlier and later discourses of the prophet may be 
explained by several considerations, without having recourse to dif- 
ferent authorship. Difference of subject should be regarded. The 
discourses of the first part are mostly of a threatening character. 
They refer to judgments and desolations more than to coming pros- 
perity and good. Accordingly, brevity and energy of expression are 
best adapted to them. They become more striking and effective by 
a compressed form of expression. On the other hand, an easy flow 
and fulness of discourse is better suited to the latter chapters of the 
book, where the announcement of plenteous salvation constitutes the 
great theme. In conformity with the comprehensive character of the 
subject, deliverance from the effects of Jehovah's displeasure and 
restoration to his favour, the reader expects richness of expression 
and abundant imagery. Besides, the prophecies of the first part were 



On the Booh of the Prophet Isaiah. 857 

uttered publicly before the people in agitating circumstances, while 
those of the latter were written towards the close of the prophet's 
life, when he had partly withdrawn from the outward activities of his 
office, and could calmly set forth the result of the communications he 
had received respecting the future of Jehovah's kingdom on earth. 
He could then elaborate at his leisure the higher views of the theo- 
cracy which his spirit aspired to reach. And surely Isaiah was a 
many-sided man who could employ more than one method, if need- 
ful. All that we know of him leads to the conclusion that he was 
not shut up to one way of presenting his ideas. He was master of 
many moods. His endowments were various, and his style diver- 
sified. In him largeness of mind made an outlet for itself of corre- 
sponding breadth and fulness. Those, therefore, that would cramp 
him down to one uniform manner, do violence to the greatness of 
intellect and heart which gave him a pre-eminent position among the 
servants of God. 

In relation to the peculiarities belonging to the later prophecies 
which do not occur in the earlier, they are accounted for by the na- 
ture of the subject. In a piece of such compass as twenty -seven 
chapters, it is natural to find peculiar ideas and expressions. Some 
of the peculiarities in question are not prevailing ones in the later 
prophecies. Others rest on a false basis, such as Hg'lV, PHV, to which 
are attributed the signification, salvation, victory ; EStXP, religion ; 
"IH3, to prove; which words should be understood in their usual 
sense. Other idioms occur in the earlier prophecies, as the emphatic 
repetition of words, the accumulation of predicates, fyc. 

The later diction, or Chaldaisms, to which appeal has been made, 
proves little. The language is tolerably free from Chaldaisms. This 
is evident from the fact that so few have been accumulated in the 
entire twenty-seven chapters. Some Chaldaisms may be found in 
writers earlier than Isaiah, even in the Pentateuch, as Hirzel has 
shown. 1 The nature of the Hebrew language, and the history of 
the people using it, account for this fact. Others are employed be- 
cause they are more poetical, as W^?^, lxiii. 3., and vDH, liii. 10. 
Some words, as D^P (xli. 25.), may be explained by the intercourse 
of the Jews with the Assyrians, in the days of Isaiah. Besides, not 
a few of the alleged Chaldaisms and Arabisms are incorrectly so 
called. At the same time, if Hirzel meant to say that the four ex- 
amples of Chaldaism which he gives from Isaiah be the only real 
ones in the book (vii. 14.,xxix. 1., xviii. 7., xxi. 12.), he was certainly 
mistaken. 2 There are other unmistakeable ones in the last twenty- 
seven chapters, which he has not noticed. And when Jahn affirms 
that, after repeated perusals, he can find only two words of a later 
age than Isaiah's in the later prophecies, viz., ny¥, li. 14., lxiii. 1., 
and O^ip, xli. 25., which, however, he thinks, after all, are not Chal- 
daising and modern, he is egregiously in error. 3 Such advocacy of 



1 De Chaldaismi Biblici origine et auctoiitate critica. - Ibid. p. 9. 

3 Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 485. 



858 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

the truth can only render the defence of it more difficult, as Ge senilis 
intuitively saw. 1 

Forms and constructions are falsely explained. What is termed a 
later usage, is resolvable into poetical licence, or is no later usage at 
all. In this way, the list accumulated by Knobel out of preceding 
writers may be reduced to an inconsiderable extent — inconsiderable 
in comparison with other phenomena favourable to the authenticity of 
the chapters. An example or two will suffice to verify these remarks. 
ffttt, xliv. 14., to appoint. The usual meaning of strengthen is pre- 
ferable. 1#, law-giver, lv. 4. Here the sense which the word else- 
where has should be retained, ivitness. 

The argument taken from Jer. xxvi. is a mere argumentum e 
silentio, which can prove nothing apart from far weightier ones. In 
this case it is entirely overborne by the fact that Jeremiah and Ezekiel 
were acquainted with these later prophecies of Isaiah. 

On the whole, we must express our conviction of the weakness 
attaching to the long and laboured argument of Knobel and his fel- 
lows against the authenticity of the portion before us. Even in the 
part of it that relates to style and diction, where these critics ought 
to be most in their element, it is inconclusive. The later character 
of the language, supposing the prophecies to have been written to- 
wards the close of the exile, cannot be sustained by a number of 
separate expressions here and there, or of occasional forms and con- 
structions. It would require a more frequent, uniform, and pervading 
element of the later usage to present the argument in a convincing 
light. The effort to find later forms and words is obvious, from 
the doubtfulness and positive inapplicability of several adduced ; 
showing that occasional phenomena pointing to the later diction are 
perfectly reconcileable with an Isaiah-origin and period. Had these 
prophecies been addressed by a Jewish exile to his countrymen living 
among them, the later Chaldaising nature of the style would have 
been more definite and extensive ; the diction would have been 
coloured by it throughout, which it certainly is not. 

It is possible to conceive that the writer of these chapters imitated 
the purer diction of former times, as the prophets Zechariah, Haggai, 
and Malachi did, whose style is almost free from Chaldaisms. But 
a post-exilian was differently situated from them. They belonged to 
the newly-returned colony ; whereas he was in a position similar to 
that of the Chaldaising Ezekiel. It would even have been more 
difficult for him to have written pure Hebrew, because he spent his 
youth in a country where Chaldee was spoken, which Ezekiel did not. 
" In addition to this," as Hengstenberg well remarks, " it ought to 
be mentioned that an artificial abstinence from the language of their 
times occurs only in those prophets who entirely lean upon an earlier 
prophetic literature ; but that union of purity in diction with inde- 
pendence, which is manifest in the attacked portions of Isaiah, is no- 
where else to be found." 2 

! Commentar, u. s. w. vol. iii. p. 24. 2 Article Isaiah in Kitto's Cyclopaedia. 



On the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 859 

The following positive arguments may be stated in favour of the 
authenticity of the present chapters. 

1. They are repeatedly and expressly attributed to Isaiah in the 
New Testament. Thus, John i. 23 ., As Esaias the prophet spake, is an 
introductory formula to the passage, Isaiah xl. 3. In like manner, we 
read in Matt. xii. 17., That vjhich was spoken by Esaias the prophet, 
saying, prefixed to Isaiah xlii. 1. &c. ; in Matt. iii. 3., He that 
was spoken of by Isaiah the prophet, saying, prefixed to Isaiah xl. 3. 
&c. ; in John xii. 38., That the word of Esaias the prophet might be 

fulfilled which he spake, prefixed to Isaiah liii. 1. &c. These, and 
similar quotations, plainly show that our Lord and his apostles be- 
lieved these chapters to have been written by Isaiah himself. 

2. In the book of Jesus Sirach, called Ecclesiasticus, which was 
written in the second century before Christ, there is a testimony 
to the authenticity of the portion in question. In xlviii. 22 — 25. 
we read " For Ezekias had done the thing that pleased the Lord, 
and was strong in the ways of David his father, as Esay the 
prophet, who was great and faithful in his vision, had commanded 
him. In his time the sun went backward, and he lengthened the 
king's life. He saw by an excellent spirit what should come to pass 
at the last, and he comforted them that mourned in Zion. He showed 
what should come to pass for ever, and secret things or ever they 
came." This commendation especially refers to the later prophecies 
of Isaiah. 

3. According to Josephus, Cyrus was led by the prophecies of 
Isaiah respecting him to give permission to the Jews to return and 
rebuild the temple. The edict issued by that king confirms Josephus's 
statement ; for in it it is announced that the Lord God of heaven had 
given him all the kingdoms of the earth, and had charged him to 
build him an house at Jerusalem. (Ezi-a i.) This can only refer to 
the latter part of Isaiah ; and Kleinert l has shown that the edict 
employs even many of the words belonging to the prophecies. 
Supposing the prophecies spurious, Cyrus must have been deceived 
by a supposititious work, which is quite incredible. And Ezra, in 
writing as he did about the edict, committed a fraud upon his readers 
— a supposition in direct opposition to his character. The conduct 
of Cyrus is inexplicable, except on the admission that what Ezra and 
Josephus relate was correct, viz. that the prophecies of Isaiah had 
induced the king to take a step so singular. 2 

4. The oldest testimony for the authenticity of these prophecies is 
the inscription in i. 1., in which it is stated that Isaiah wrote the 
prophecies following. It has been doubted, indeed, whether this in- 
scription proceeded from Isaiah himself or a compiler. If it pro- 
ceeded from the latter, the latest date at which it could have been 
made was at the reception of the book into the canon. This time is 
very uncertain. It was not so early as Ezra and Nehemiah. There 
is nothing against the supposition that the title proceeded from 

1 Ueber die Echtheit samnitlicher in deni Buche Iesaia enthaltenen Weissagungen, 
n. s. w. p. 142. 

2 Ibid. p. 134. et seqq. 



860 Intioduction to the Old Testament 

Isaiah himself. On the contrary, its relationship to that in ii. 1., 
which is undoubtedly authentic, favours the Isaiah-authorship. The 
force of this argument is not weakened by the hypothesis of Koppe, 
Rosenmiiller, and others, viz. that the inscription refers to no more 
than the first chapter, and that the words " in the days of Uzziah, 
Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah," were subsequently 
added. This appears to be favoured by the circumstance that the 
inscription, as it now stands, does not suit the whole book, the 
contents not being confined to Judah and Jerusalem but extending 
to foreign nations. The theocracy, however, is the centre of the 
prophecies, and all were uttered for its sake. Hence the title is quite 
appropriate to the entire collection. Nor is the argument weakened 
by another hypothesis which Gesenius, Hitzig, and others adopt, viz. 
that the title refers to an original collection of Isaiah's prophecies, 
either the first twelve chapters or more. This is a mere hypothesis, im- 
probable in itself, and unparalleled in the field of prophetic literature. 

5. The use of these prophecies by others shows their existence 
anterior to the exile; and consequently leads to the inference that they 
were written by Isaiah. Jeremiah makes considerable use of them. 
Thus in the tenth chapter of Jeremiah, where the impotence of the 
heathen gods is described, the language is copied from Isaiah. The 
following passages also show imitation : Jer. xlviii. 18. 22. 26., com- 
pared with Isa. xlvii. 1 — -3. ; Jer. xii. 14., compared with Isa. lvi. 9.; 
Jer. xii. 11., compared with Isa. lvii. 1. ; Jer. v. 25. &c, compared with 
Isa. lix. 1, 2.; Jer. xiii. 16., compared with Isa. lix. 9 — 11. ; Jer. xiv. 7., 
compared with Isa. lix. 12. ; Jer. 1. Ii., containing a prophecy against 
Babylon, present many evidences of imitation, which Jahn has 
presented to the eye in parallel columns l : and Kueper has drawn out 
the whole argument with a minuteness and skill sufficient to convince 
an impartial inquirer. 2 In like manner, Ezekiel has made use of the 
chapters before us, as may be seen by comparing Ezek. xxiii. 40, 41. 
with Isa. lvii. 9. ; Ezek. xxiii. with Isa. lvii. 9. Zephaniah has also 
copied, as ii. 15., from Isa. xlvii. 8.; iii. 10. from Isa. lxvi. 19, 20. 
Evidence of the same procedure is found in JSTahum : ii. 1. appears 
to be taken from Isa. Iii. 1. 7. ; iii. 7. from li. 19. 3 

6. On the supposition of these chapters being spurious, it is very 
difficult to give any rational explanation of their incorporation with 
the authentic Isaiah. This problem is still more intricate to those 
who find a farrago of authentic and spurious pieces in the first thirty- 
nine chapters likewise. 

To these external arguments for the authenticity of the portion of 
Isaiah under review, may be subjoined internal ones. 

1, Various intimations point to the real time and position of the 
prophet. He lived long before the exile, and did not conceal the fact. 
He asserts that the knowledge of future events, such as the destruc- 
tion of Babylon and deliverance of Israel, had been revealed to him 

1 Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 465. et seqq. 
. 2 Jeremias Librarnm sacrorum interpres, &c. p. 134. et seqq. Comp. also Caspari in 
Rudclbach and Guericke's Zeitschrift for 1843, ii. p. 48. et seqq. 

3 See Kueper, p. 137. et seqq. 



On the Booh of the Prophet Isaiah. 861 

before their fulfilment. Such events are represented as neic, not 
before heard of, which Jehovah had caused to be announced before 
they had given any outward indications of their appearance, (xlii. 9., 
xli. 21— 27., xliii. 9—13., xlv. 21., xlvi. 10., xlviii. 3. 5.) These 
declarations throw the date of composition back to a period before 
Cyrus appeared, even if they be restricted to him alone as the de- 
liverer of Israel. But they are of a more general aspect, referring 
both to the destruction of Babylon and the deliverance of Israel in 
general. 

2. The locality of the writer was not Babylon, as has been affirmed. 
Ewald makes it to be Egypt, because the northern parts of the 
Chaldean empire are spoken of as the remote end of the earth (xli. 
25. comp. xxiv. 16.) ; on account of the interest which the author 
seems to take in Egypt (xliii. 3., xlv. 14. &c); and because of the 
special mention of the Sinhn, i. e. those dwelling in Pelusium ; and 
because swine's flesh is mentioned as offered in sacrifice to idols, 
(lxv. 4. &c.) ' But these particulars are no proof that the writer was 
in Egypt. 2 In like manner, it does not follow from the addresses to 
Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, in xl. 2. 9. comp. xli. 27., li. 16., 
lxii. 1. &c. that the speaker lived in Jerusalem, as Havernick supposes. 3 
The state of the people described shows that the prophet belonged to 
Judah ; and lived before the downfall of the kingdom of Judah and 
the destruction of Jerusalem. His reproofs of prevailing sins, the 
neglect of sacrifice to Jehovah (xliii. 22. &c), the prevalence of every 
kind of idolatry (lvii. 3. &c), seeking the favour of foreign rulers 
(lvii. 9. &c), apply to the time of Isaiah and to the Jews in Palestine. 
This is confirmed by the circumstance that Egypt, Ethiopia, and 
Seba are spoken of as the leading nations of that time, (xliii. 3., 
xlv. 14.) 

3. The general method of description is analogous to that of Isaiah 
himself. Thus the prophecy in Isaiah xi. 7 — 9. is repeated in nearly 
the same words in lxv. 25. To explain this by imitation is a gratui- 
tous assumption. The circle of images is similar, as the melting of 
metals (i. 22., xlviii. 10.), the closing of eyes (vi. 10., xliv. 18.), night and' 
morning datrn (viii. 20., lviii. 8., xlvii. 11.), sitting in darkness (ix. 1., 
xlvii. 5.), tailing off the veil (xxii. 8., xlvii. 2.), a crown for cities 
(xxviii. 1., lxii. 3.), tent and tent-pins (xxxiii. 20., liv. 2.), drunken or 
reeling (xxviii. 7. &c, xlix. 26., li. 17. &c). In both parts of the book 
we seldom find visions related, or symbolical actions performed, 
though these are frequent in the later prophets. Lyrical pieces are 
interspersed, as v. 1. &c, xii. 1. &c, Ixi. 10., lxiii. 7 — lxiv. 11. In 
like manner, paronomasia and antithesis are frequently used (xxx. 
16., and xliii. 23., lxvi. 3, 4.) ; frequent repetition of a word in 
the parallel members of a verse (xi. 5., xv. 1. 8., lix. 10. &c). 
Objects are accumulated in narration, &c, as has been shown by 
KJeinert. 4 

1 Die Proplieten des Alten Bundes, vol. ii. pp. 409, 410. 

- Comp. Meier in the Studien und Kritiken for 1848, p. 875. et seqg. 

3 Einleitung ii. 2. p. 186. 

4 Die Echtheit, u. s. w., p. 279. et seqg. 



862 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

4. The diction and linguistic colouring speak in favour of Isaiah- 
authorship. Peculiarities of this kind belonging to Isaiah in the first 
part recur in the second. Were these few in number, or insignifi- 
cant in themselves, they might be called with Hitzig " trifles," or 
explained as " imitations of the genuine Isaiah," with De "Wette. 
Rut they are too important and prominent to be so accounted for. 
Thus, b»5&? K>np, the holy one of Israel (xli. 14. 16. 20.), occurs four- 
teen times in the latter part. In the first part the appellation occurs 
eleven times. No other prophet has the same idiom ; and it occurs no 
where else except three times in the Psalms. The use of S^j??, to be 
called, for to be, occurs with equal frequency in both parts (xlvii. 1. 
4, 5., xlviii. 8. &c, liv. 5., lvi. 7. &c). Another idiom peculiar to 
Isaiah is i? "i£&0, shall be said to, called (iv. 3., xix. 18., lxi. 6., lxii. 4.). 
nin. 11 1©K* in parenthetic clauses, for which "J£>X trip) or similar phrases 
are found elsewhere. 1*3$, mighty, is used of God only in this prophet 
(i. 24., xlix. 26., lx. 16.). The poetical term &'$¥$¥> offspring (xxii. 24., 
xlii. 5., xliv. 3., xlviii. 19., lxi. 9., lxv. 23.). 2nn, Rahab, Egypt (xxx. 
7., li. 9.). The poetical word JH|, trunk (xi. 1., xl. 24.). }*nri, threshing- 
machine (xxviii. 27., xli. 15.). D?2 t| <!5!, streams of water, \s only found 
in Isaiah (xxx. 25., xliv. 4.). Y^V}-> thicket of thorns, is found only in 
vii. 19. and lv. 13. The union of the words x'^3! D^, high and lifted up 
(ii. 13., vi. l.,lvii. 15.). W5, used of the drying up of water (xix. 5., 
xli. 17.). "$0? T\\7\, to be a burning or destruction (v. 5., vi. 13., xliv. 
15.). V% brood (contemptuously) (i.4.,lvii.3.). Virp, shoot (xi. 10.,liii. 
2.). TN'i?, heretofore (xvi. 13., xliv. 8., xlv. 21., xlviii. 3. 5. 7.) ! 

The best critics commonly admit at the present day that these 
chapters belong to one time and author, forming a united whole. The 
writer Ave have seen to be Isaiah himself; for the grounds adduced 
against his authorship are insufficient to shake it, being founded for 
the most part on erroneous views of the nature of prophecy itself. 

In relation to the distribution of the whole piece into sections, the 
best division is that of Hiickert 2 , who makes three, each consistiog of 
nine chapters, and marked by a similar close in the first two, viz. 
xlviii. 22., lvii. 21. In this manner there arise xl. — xlviii., xlix. — lvii., 
lviii. — lxvi. According to Havernick 3 , the first describes the relation 
of Israel to heathenism ; the second, Israel as the centre of salvation 
to the world; the third, the completion of the theocracy in glory. 
There is some truth in the sections thus made, and in the subject of 
each as announced ; but the general topic of the first two is substan- 
tially the same, what is stated in one being repeated in the other. 
Hence we cannot agree with the view of Riietschi, who has endea- 
voured to point out "a very beautiful and careful disposition of the 
whole piece," taking for the basis of his essay the division proposed 
by Riickert. According to this critic, two announcements of what 
the prophet intends to proclaim stand at the commencement of the 
oracle (chapters xl. and xli.). Then chapters xlii. — xlviii. form the 
first and leading division of the whole prophecy, which he subdivides 

1 See Kleinert's Die Echtheit, § 7. p. 220. et seqq., and Havernick, ii. 2. p. 192. et seqq. 

2 Hebraische Propheten uebersetzt und erlaiitert i. 1831. 

3 Einleit. ii. 2. p. 153. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 863 

into three parts. But we must refer to the essay itself for the plan 
and progress traced throughout. The ingenious scholar has discovered 
and developed what the writer himself did not think of, by putting 
his own ideas into the piece. 1 Alexander justly remarks, that the 
division made by Ruckert is rather poetical than critical ; the whole 
being a desultory though continued composition. 

For obvious reasons those prophecies of Isaiah are most important 
and interesting to Christians now, which speak of the servant of God. 
If they have any reference to the person of the Saviour, as the ma- 
jority of expositors have always believed, they are invested with 
peculiar interest. The passages which relate to this servant are 
xlii. 1—9., xlix. 1—9., 1. 4—11., li. 16., Hi. 13— liii. 12., lxi. The 
statements here made respecting him are briefly these: — Jehovah 
had called him from the womb, had protected and constituted him 
His agent, clothing his word with power, (xlix. 1, 2.) He had put 
His spirit upon him, and sent him forth as a source of light and 
health to the surrounding nations, (xlii. 1.) He was to be mild and 
unostentatious, a mediator between Jehovah and the nations, to open 
blind eyes and release from spiritual bondage, and to introduce a new 
dispensation, (xlii. 1 — 7., li. 16.) He was despised and rejected of 
men, disfigured with sufferings and bathed in sorrows, yet uncom- 
plaining and patient amid injuries ; suffering pain and death, not for 
any sins of his own, but on behalf of others, (liii. 1 — 8.) The fruit 
of his sufferings will correct all errors, and he shall receive a glorious 
reward (liii. 10 — 12.), being exalted in proportion to his previous hu- 
miliation, (lii. 13 — 15.) The chief opinions respecting this servant 
of God are the following, taking lii. 13 — liii. 12. as the basis : — 

1. Bosenmiiller, Hitzig, andKoester suppose the Jewish people in 
exile to be meant in their relation to the heathen. The Septuagint 
version agrees with them in regard to chapter xlii. ; and in relation to 
chapter liii., Abenesra, Jarchi, Kimchi, Abarbenel, and Eichhorn. 
According to this view the heathen are supposed to be introduced 
speaking in liii. 1 — 10. Israel had suffered in place of the heathen 
who had rejected the Saviour. This interpretation is destitute of all 
evidence. The heathen are never introduced elsewhere as speaking. 
Besides, the servant of Jehovah is distinguished from the Jewish 
people in xlix. 6., and the interpretation is either unsuitable to many 
passages, or can only be adapted to them by an arbitrary and ex- 
travagant exegesis. 

2. Others, as Paulus, Thenius, Maurer, Von Coelln, interpret the 
pious portion of the people. This is substantially the same as Hen- 
dewerk's view — the young growth of the nation or young Israel in 
opposition to the old incorrigible Israel. Against both these it may 
be urged, that they do not satisfy the conditions of some places where 
the servant of Jehovah seems to be either a more comprehensive or a 
more definite object ; and that they are opposed to the plain meaning 
of others. The servant of God is spoken of as a person in li. 16.; as 

1 See Studien und Kritiken for 1854, p. 261. et seqq. 



864 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

dying and living again after death (liii. 10 — 12.) ; and as atoning for 
the sins of the whole nation. 

3. Gesenius, De Wette, Winer, Schenkel, and others suppose that 
the phrase denotes the prophetic order. But the prophets were not 
sent to the Gentiles, as is stated of the servant of Jehovah, (xlii. 6.) 
It was no part of their mission to enlighten and save the nations 
generally. The view of Umbreit is in part the same as this ; but he 
includes the conception of Messiah, the ideal of all the prophets. 

4. Hofmann's view is a modification of the two preceding ones, 
and exposed to the same objections, viz. Israel suffering in their pro- 
phetic vocation on behalf of the heathen world. 1 

5. Schumann supposes that the servant of God includes both the 
pious Israelites and prophets, and Christ the Messiah, thus uniting 
two interpretations. He thinks that the prophet had distinctly in 
his mind his own times and its relations, and therefore speaks of the 
fate of the pious Israelites and prophets ; while at the same time a 
definite person arose before his view, who was to be the restorer of 
the theocratic kingdom ; and what he prophesied of him applies, 
through the influence of the divine Spirit, to the person of Christ. 2 

This view is not far from the truth ; but it is a doubtful exposition 
which separates the ideas of the prophet himself from those of the 
Spirit by whom he was inspired. 

6. Delitzsch considers the servant of God as a mere ideal, to which 
the prophet has given the living portrait of a person ; a collective 
body belonging to the historical present of the prophet, and to which 
he himself belongs, — the invisible church of the dispersed, consisting 
of Jehovah's faithful worshippers, — visible indeed in its members, but 
invisible in so far as it is destitute of the external unity of an associ- 
ation, and possesses only the internal unity of like-mindedness. 3 

Whatever may be said of the piety, fidelity, and self-sacrifice of a 
portion of the Israelites during exile, their sufferings and endurance 
cannot be considered a vicarious and expiatory sacrifice for the sins of 
the nation. 

7. It is almost unnecessary to mention such opinions as, that king 
Uzziah is meant; or Hezekiah ; or Josiah; or Isaiah himself; or 
Jeremiah; or Cyrus. In the three sections xlii. 1 — 7., xlix. 1 — 9., 
lii. 13 — liii. 12., the servant of Jehovah is not interpreted alike by 
the same* commentator ; so that one critic may be sometimes quoted 
on behalf of different opinions. 

Every one will perceive at a glance that none of the individuals 
mentioned can be the subject of the prophecies respecting the servant 
of Jehovah. 

8. The Messianic view appears to us the only tenable one. The 
Jews so understood the language of the prophet till their opposition 
to Christians induced them to renounce that explanation. Accord- 
ingly it is found in the Chaldee paraphrase on xlii. L, lii. 13. But 

1 Weissagung und Erfullung im alten und im neuen Testamente, vol. i. p. 275. 

2 Introduction to the Books of the Old and New Testaments, pp. 134, 135., English 
version. 

3 In Kudelbach and Guericke's Zeitschrift for 1850, p. 34. 



On the Booh of the Prophet Isaiah. 865 

Abenesra, Jarchi, David Kimchi, Abarbenel, Sal. Ben Melek (even 
the Septuagint, xlii. 1 — 9.) applied chapter liii. to Israel in exile. 
Christian interpreters always referred the prophecies in question to 
Christ, till the higher criticism, pervaded by scepticism, turned away 
many from the Messianic explanation. This view is proved to be 
correct by many quotations in the New Testament. Comp. xlii. 1. 
&c, with Matt. xii. 18. &c. ; xlix. 6. with Acts xiii. 47. ; xlix. 8. 
with 2 Cor. vi. 2. ; lii. 15. with Rom. xv. 21. ; liii. 1. with John xii. 
38. and Rom. x. 16.; liii. 4. with Matt. viii. 17.; liii. 5, 6. with 
1 Peter ii. 24. &c. ; liii. 7, 8. with Acts viii. 32. &c. ; liii. 9. with 
1 Peter ii. 22. ; liii. 12. with Luke xxii. 37. There is no doubt 
that our Lord and his apostles believed in the Messianic sense of the 
appellation. But if the usage of servant of Jehovah be carefully ob- 
served, it will appear that the person of Christ is not exclusively 
meant. That he is intended is unquestionable ; else some places are 
both obscure and inexplicable, especially those where the servant of 
God is set forth as a Teacher of the Gentiles, a spiritual Deliverer, 
and a vicarious Sacrifice for the sins of the people (xlii. 1. 7., liii. 
4 — 6.). These and similar statements cannot be properly harmonised 
with any un-Messianic view. At the same time, the phrase servant 
of Jcohvah is used collectively. Thus we read in xlix. 3., " He said 
to me, Thou art my servant ; Israel, in whom I will be glorified." 
Here the servant of God and Israel are in apposition ; the one ex- 
plaining the other. In like manner, xliii. 10., "Ye are my wit- 
nesses, saith the Lord, and (ye are) my servant whom I have chosen." 
Here is a combination of plural and singular. Again, xlii. 19., 
" Who is blind, but my servant ? or deaf, as my messenger that I 
sent," &c, where Israel or the chosen people are meant, not the 
Messiah, as Henderson absurdly supposes. Since, therefore, the ap- 
pellation before us is used in two ways, both in reference to one person, 
who is none other than Christ, and collectively, of Israel ; neither the 
one nor the other can be adopted exclusively. Indeed, the one does 
not necessarily exclude the other. The Messianic interpretation is 
consistent with the collective use of servant of Jehovah, because the 
latter denotes Christ and his church, the head and the members of 
his spiritual body, the Saviour and the true Israel, ?'. e. his people 
viewed in connection with him. No objection can be offered to this 
view from the fact of Israel in Isaiah meaning the Jewish -people gene- 
rally; and of the term having another application to the New Testament 
church, viz. the spiritual Israel of the new dispensation. Israel in 
both applications were alike the chosen people of God, whom he 
called and set apart to his own service. This interpretation, as Alex- 
ander justly remarks, " agrees exactly with the mission both of the 
Redeemer and his people, as described in Scripture, and accounts for 
all the variations which embarrass the interpretation of the passages 
in question upon any more exclusive exegetical hypothesis." l If it 
be asked, says the same writer, "how the different applications of 
this honourable title are to be distinguished, so as to avoid confusion 

1 Earlier and Later Prophecies of Isaiah, &c., p. 626. 
VOL. II. 3 K 



886 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

or capricious inconsistency, the answer is as follows : Where the terms 
are in their nature applicable both to Christ as the head and to his 
church as the body, there is no need of distinguishing at all between 
them. Where sinful imperfection is implied in what is said, it must 
of course be applied to the body only. Where a freedom from such 
imperfection is implied, the language can have a direct and literal 
reference only to the head, but may be considered as descriptive of 
the body, in so far as its idea or design is concerned, though not in 
reference to its actual condition. Lastly, when any thing is said im- 
plying Deity or infinite merit, the application to the head becomes not 
only predominant but exclusive." l 

If the view now given be correct, it will appear that some truth 
lies in various interpretations which have been assigned to the. phrase. 
The Messiah unites and completes in his own person the offices of 
prophet, priest, and king. These foreshadowed him under the Old 
Testament, preparing the minds of the believing Jews for one 
greater than the prophets, on whose law the isles should wait; more 
than a priest, in that he should offer up himself for a sacrifice; 
higher than a king, inasmuch as kings should tremble at his glory. 
The prophets, priests, and kings of the Old Testament were only 
three representations of One Person, who should be none such as 
they exclusively, and yet all together. In like manner it is true that 
the Israelites, as a nation, or the pious portion of them, are included 
in the appellation, but only in connection with Messiah, as his body 
or church. When the head suffers they suffer in him and for his sake. 

Though Drechsler, followed by Keil, has endeavoured to point 
out an organic unity in the entire book by tracing a principle running 
throughout it, which is supposed to correspond to the gradual deve- 
lopment of Isaiah's prophetic activity, we are unable to perceive its 
existence, except in the ingenuity of the critic himself. But that the 
whole is without plan and confused we do not believe. Neither is 
it an aggregation of authentic and unauthentic pieces mixed together 
in an arbitrary and accidental way. Yet the book, in its present 
form, did not proceed from one gush, as it were : part succeeded 
part till all the oracles were put together as they now are. Whe- 
ther the final redaction is traceable to Isaiah himself, as the last 
act of his prophetic ministry before his death, is extremely question- 
able. Opposed to the hypothesis is the section xxxvi. — xxxix., which 
goes beyond the death of Isaiah. Opposed to it also is the general 
arrangement of the book, which has been regulated by the subject- 
matter rather than chronology ; except in cases where the chronological 
principle might be conveniently united with the material one. Had 
chronological succession pervaded the prophecies, we might have sup- 
posed that the author himself arranged them ; but the other order 
argues a foreign hand, whose concern was to bring the contents into 
a suitable shape for affording a general survey of them. Besides, 
there is reason for believing that we have not all the prophecies of 
Isaiah, — that some at least have been lost. Not one is extant which 
can with probability be assigned to the reign of Jotham. Here 

1 Earlier and Later Prophecies of Isaiah, &c., pp. 626, 627. 



On the Book of the Prophet Isaiah. 867 

then is a gap of at least sixteen years. Is it likely that the prophet 
spent so many years, after having entered upon his ministry, without 
receiving a divine revelation during them? 1 Hengstenberg 2 , who is 
reluctant to admit the force of these considerations, asserts it as a likely 
thing that Isaiah uttered no prophecy during all that time which he 
thought proper to preserve : an assertion purely arbitrary. In like 
manner the critic assei^ts that the prophetic addresses in the days of 
Uzziah represented the days of Jotham also. We are reminded too of 
the fact that the prophets did not write all they uttered. This is 
true ; but would it not be very strange that nothing which the prophet 
spoke during all the reign of Jotham was worthy of preservation, 
while the same thing applies to no other reign ? 

In addition to the considerations already stated for the later re- 
daction of the prophecies of Isaiah, we may appeal to the headings of 
various oracles, as xvii. 1 — 11., winch is said to be an oracle against 
Damascus, whereas it is rather against Samaria. To the collector or 
compiler also belong those titles which are borrowed from a single 
word in the oracle itself, as the hvrden of the desert of the sea (xxi. 1.), 
taken from "Q"!^ in the first verse. See also xxi. 13., xxii. I. 3 

If there be any truth in these remarks, the collecting and arrange- 
ment of the various pieces were the work of a later hand. To him 
belong some of the titles at least. The collection was begun by the 
prophet himself, and completed after his death ; how long after, it is 
impossible to tell. Perhaps a considerable time elapsed, affording 
occasion for the insertion of a piece (xxxvi. — xxxix.) which did not 
originate with Isaiah himself, in its present form. 

Among all the prophetic writings those of Isaiah occupy the first 
place in respect to the compass and quality of their contents. They 
exhibit the marvellous elevation of a spirit looking at the present and 
future in the light of divine truth. None has announced, in like 
terms to his, the downfall of all earthly powers, or called back secure 
sinners to the law and the testimony, or unfolded to the view of the 
afflicted the transcendent glory and fulness of Jehovah's salvation 
which should arise upon the remnant of Israel forsaken and perse- 
cuted. None has depicted the person and sufferings of Messiah 
with equal clearness, or penetrated so far into the new dispen- 
sation. With perfect propriety has he been called the Evangelist of 
the Old Testament. The form of his oracles corresponds to their 
contents. As the latter are rich, full, sublime, many-sided, so is the 
manner of their presentation. " He is at once," says Lowth, " ele- 
gant and sublime, forcible and ornamented. He unites energy with 
copiousness, and dignity with variety. In his sentiments there is 
uncommon elevation and majesty ; in his imagery the utmost pro- 
priety, elegance, dignity, and diversity ; in his language uncommon 
beauty and energy ; and, notwithstanding the obscurity of his sub- 
jects, a surprising degree of clearness and simplicity. To these we 
may add, there is such sweetness in the poetical composition of his 

1 Sec Kleinert ueber die Echtheit, u. s. w. p. 110. et seqq. 

2 Article Isaiah in Kitto's Cyclopaedia. 

3 See Ewald's die Propheten, u. s. w., vol. i. pp. 58, 59. 

3 K 2 



868 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

sentences, whether it proceed from art or genius, that if the Hebrew 
poetry at present is possessed of any remains of its native grace and 
harmony, we shall chiefly find them in the writings of Isaiah ; so that 
the saying of Ezekeil may most justly be applied to this prophet : 

' Thou art a perfect exemplar in all measures, 
Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty.' (xxviii. 12.)" 

Isaiah greatly excels, too, in all the graces of method, order, 
connection, and arrangement; though in asserting this we must not 
forget the nature of the prophetic impulse, which bears away the 
mind with irresistible violence, and frequently in rapid transitions, 
from near to remote objects — from human to divine." l It is truly 
remarked by Ewald, that " one cannot say of Isaiah as of other 
prophets, that he had any special peculiarity and favourite colouring 
in his general manner of writing. He is neither the mainly lyrical, 
the mainly elegiac, nor the mainly oratorical and admonitory prophet, 
as perhaps Joel, Hosea, Micah, in whom a particular colouring pre- 
dominates. According as the subject requires, every method of 
discourse, and every interchange of manner, are at his ready dis- 
posal; and this is the very thing that establishes his greatness and 
constitutes one of his most distinguished excellences." 2 



CHAP. XIX. 

ON THE BOOK OF THE PKOPHET JEREMIAH. 

Jeremiah was the son of Hilkiah, a priest of Anathoth, a small 
place not far from Jerusalem (three Roman miles north of it, accord- 
ing to Jerome). Called to the prophetic office in the thirteenth year 
of Josiah (i. 2., xxv. 3.), while he was yet a youth, he prophesied 
under the reigns of Josiah, Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and 
Zedekiah. Some have thought that his father was the same Hilkiah 
the high priest who found the Book of the Law in the temple, 
as mentioned in 2 Kings xxii. and 2 Chron. xxxiv. ; but the cir- 
cumstance that Anathoth was inhabited by priests of the house of 
Ithamar, according to 1 Kings ii. 26., while the high priest Hilkiah 
was of the house of Phinehas (1 Chron. vi. 4 — 13.), militates against 
the supposition. Besides, Hilkiah the high priest would scarcely 
have resided with his family out of Jerusalem. He appeared as a 
prophet in his native place, and exercised his ministry there for a 
time, so that he must have been well known at Anathoth. (xi. 21.) 
Keil denies this without sufficient reason, and maintains that the 
words of xi. 21. do not justify a prophetic residence in his native 
village. But the place where all his more important discourses were 

1 See Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, lecture xxi. 

2 Die Propheten des alten Bundes, vol. i. p. 173. 



On the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. 869 

delivered was Jerusalem, especially the temple there. There is 
abundant cause for believing that he discharged the duties of his 
ministry with unceasing diligence and fidelity during the forty-two 
years of its existence (630 — 590 B.C.); but he met with much oppo- 
sition and ill treatment from his countrymen. While very young, 
the men of Anathoth plotted against his life (xi. 18. &c, xii. 5. &c); 
and this, with other causes, may have determined him to take up his 
residence at Jerusalem. It is highly probable that he was respected 
by Josiah and contributed to the reforms effected by that pious 
monarch. But he was not acceptable to the people, whose vices he 
sharply reproved. Under Jehoahaz, the successor of Josiah, whose 
reign lasted but three months, it would appear that, though he was 
unmolested by the king, he was persecuted by the Egyptian party 
in Judah because he opposed the alliance with Egypt, which they 
urged. Hence he complained of his attitude of controversy against 
the whole land ; and would have abandoned the prophetic calling had 
not patriotism and his religious inspiration prevented, (xv. 10 — 21.) 
Under the reign of Jehoiakim he fared much worse. Both king and. 
people mocked, insulted, and persecuted him. To the corrupt priests 
and false prophets his announcements were particularly obnoxious. 
Accordingly they apprehended him, and, bringing him before the 
civil authorities, requested that he should be put to death for his 
threatenings of destruction to the city ; but by the princes, supported 
by a part of the people and the elders, who quoted Micah's example 
in his justification, he was declared innocent, and released. Ahikam's 
influence seems to have prevailed greatly in his favour, (xxvi.) Im- 
mediately after this he did not venture to appear in public on 
account of the animosity of his adversaries. His teachings were not 
of a kind to please the people, as he required submission to the 
Chaldeans, and announced adversity. To the corrupt priests and 
false prophets they were particularly obnoxious. Accordingly we 
find that when shut up at home, in the fourth year of the same king, 
he dictated to Baruch all the prophecies he had before delivered, and 
caused them to be read to the people on a fast-day in the temple. 
Great was the impression which they made. The princes advised 
Baruch and Jeremiah to conceal themselves while they tried to in- 
fluence the king by reading the roll .to him. But he impatiently cut 
the roll in pieces, and burned it in the fire, giving orders at the same 
time that both Jeremiah and Baruch should be apprehended. In 
consequence of this he dictated the prophecies to Baruch again, and 
added others, (xxxvi.) It was probably in the reign of Jehoiachin 
that Pashur, chief governor of the temple, seized him and put him 
in the stocks, but released him the next day. (xx. 1. &c.) The 
Pashur mentioned in chap. xxi. ver. 1. is a different person. Under 
Zedekiah he was repeatedly imprisoned, (xxxii. xxxiii. xxxvii.) Ac- 
cording to chap, xxxviii. he was consigned to a miry dungeon by the 
princes of the people ; and having, by the king's permission, been 
brought forth by a eunuch, he was kept in confinement till Nebu- 
chadnezzar, having taken the city, delivered him from imprisonment, 
and gave him the choice either of going to Babylon, or of remaining 



870 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

in the country, (xxxviii. xxxix.) He preferred the latter, and re- 
sided with Gedaliah at Mizpah. But when Gedaliah was murdered, 
he was forced to fly into Egypt, (xl. — xliii.) Here he prophesied the 
approaching devastation of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar (xliii. 8 — 13.), 
and appears to have died in the fifth year after the destruction of 
Jerusalem (583), during which Nebuchadnezzar came to Egypt — 
an event he did not live to see. According to a tradition in the 
Fathers, he was stoned by his countrymen at Daphne. 1 His grave 
was subsequently pointed out at Cairo. In 2 Maccabees ii. 1 — 8. 
there are other traditions respecting him, equally groundless. 

His writings are in Hebrew, except the eleventh verse of the tenth 
chapter, which is Chaldee ; and those at least relating to the seventy 
years of captivity were known to the prophet Daniel, (ix. 1.) 

The book contains prophecies and historical pieces. It may be 
divided into three parts : — 

I. Writings composed before the destruction of Jerusalem, (i. — 
xxxix.) 

II. Prophecies and occurrences after the destruction of Jerusalem, 
(xl.— xlv.) 

III. Prophecies against foreign nations, (xlvi. — li.) An historical 
appendix (lii.) contains the history of the last king, Zedekiah. 

The prophecies are not chronologically arranged. 

The first chapter is introductory, and relates to the calling of the 
prophet. That it was written after the destruction of Jerusalem, as 
Ewald and Hitzig suppose, is a gratuitous hypothesis. In that case 
it would have been unworthy of the proj>het. 

Chapter ii. 1 — iii. 5. contains the first discourse addressed to Israel, 
which is severe in its character, and exhibits earnest expostulation. 
It is likely that it was delivered soon after the commencement of 
Jeremiah's prophetic commission, as Blayney rightly observes. 2 
Hence it may belong to the thirteenth or fourteenth year of Josiah. 

Chapter iii. 6 — iv. 2. contains an oracle, which is a kind of supple- 
ment to the preceding one, promising divine favour to repentant 
Israel. It is impossible to determine the date under Josiah more 
exactly than that it followed the preceding discourse immediately ; 
for the charge of hypocrisy against Judah, in the 10th verse, does not 
show the date to have been some time after the eighteenth year of 
Josiah's reign, as Blayney thinks. 3 

With chapter iv. 3. begins a series of prophecies of similar import, 
all relating to a desolation of the land by a hostile army as a punish- 
ment for the sins of an incorrigible people. These oracles are iv. 3 
— vi. 30., vii. 1 — viii. 17., viii. 18 — ix. 25. The event impending 
was the Chaldean invasion. The date is the reign of Josiah ; but it 
is impossible to determine it exactly ; for Hitzig's attempt to place 
iv. 3 — vi. 30. at the time of the Scythian invasion is baseless. 4 Not 

1 See Tertullian contra Gnostic, cap. 8. Hieron. adv. Jovinian. ii. 19. Pseud-Epi- 
plianius de proph. cap. 8. Isidor. Ort. et obit. patr. cap. 38. 

2 Jeremiah and Lamentations, a new translation with notes, &c; notes p. 11., ed. 
Oxford, 1784. 4 to. 

s Ibid. pp. 23, 24. 4 Der Prophet Jeremia erklart, p. 33. 



On the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. 871 

a few have also put chapters vii. — x. into the reign of Jehoiakim 
instead of Josiah, as Venema, Dathe, Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Dahler, 
Maurer, and Ewald. But the considerations adduced in favour of 
such date are insufficient, as Hitzig 1 and Havernick 2 have shown. 

It has been thought by Hengstenberg and Havernick that the 
contents of chapters i. — x. are not single discourses spoken by the 
prophet at different times, but a resume of his entire prophetic 
ministry in the reign of Josiah. ii. 1 — iii. 5. is a shorter, and iii. 6 
— vi. 30., a longer combination of what was independent of particular 
times, being intended to give the internal bearing of the external 
reformatory activity of Josiah. vii. — x. present a similar compo- 
sition, in which the false reliance of the people in the temple is over- 
thrown, and the coming catastrophe announced in all its terrors. To 
this view we cannot assent, because it is against the analogy of other 
prophecies. It appears to have originated in the generality of the 
descriptions, and the absence of definite marks by which they can 
be assigned to particular years in the reign of Josiah. Besides, it is 
discountenanced by iv. 3. &c, where it is apparent that a new oracle 
or series of oracles begins ; and also by vii. 1., where is an inscription, 
after which Jeremiah is addressed, " Stand in the gate of the Lord's 
house, and proclaim there this word, and say," &c. As far as internal 
evidence reaches, it appears to us unfavourable to the hypothesis in 
question. It would require the absence of temsitions, and the 
existence of a more continuous narrative, as also the absence of a 
repetition like that said to be in iii. 6 — vi. 30. of ii. 1 — iii. 5. 

Chapter xi. 1 — 17. is an oracle in which severe punishment is 
threatened on account of the people despising the call to keep the 
engagements of the covenant with Jehovah. The date is in the 
reign of Josiah. Blayney thinks 3 that it was delivered towards the 
close of Josiah's reign, when the people, having forgotten their 
solemn covenant-engagements made in the eighteenth year of Josiah, 
are supposed to have relapsed into their former disregard of the divine 
law. This opinion is probable. The prophecy should be dated im- 
mediately after the preceding one, and subsequently to Josiah's 
eighteenth year. 

Chapter xi. 18 — xii. 6. is an oracle against the enemies of the 
word, and a quieting of the prophet's discouragement on account of 
their prosperity. It may be dated after the former one, in the reign 
of Josiah, though there are no marks to show anything specific as to 
the time. 

Chapter xii. 7 — 17. relates to a devastation of the land, and con- 
tains a prediction concerning its destroyers. It belongs to the reign 
of Jehoiakim. 

Chapter xiii. 1 — 27. is an oracle respecting the carrying away of 
the people as a punishment for their ingratitude and pride. In con- 
sequence of the 18th verse, where the queen-mother and king are 
mentioned, the latter being the minor Jechoniah, the prophecy 
belongs to the reign of Jehoiakim, about 599 B. C. 4 

1 Der Prophet Jeremia erklart, pp. 60, 61. 2 Einleit. ii. 2. p. 211. 

3 Notes on Jeremiah, p. 76. 4 Comp. Hitzig, p. 103. 

3 k 4 



872 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Chapters xlv. xv. contain a prophecy respecting a severe famine 
sent to punish the people for their sins, which however does not 
bring them to repentance ; and announce God's resolution to visit 
the incorrigible without mercy. To this is subjoined a complaint of 
the prophet, who receives the assurance of divine protection. The 
date is much the same as the last oracle, i. e. the later times of Je- 
hoiakim's reign. Hitzig has arbitrarily separated verses 10 — 18. of 
the fourteenth chapter from the preceding xiv. 1 — 9., and joined them 
to the end of the twelfth. He has made other divisions, too, in the 
fourteenth and fifteenth chapters, which are groundless. 

As to the famine being an actual famine, there can be little doubt, 
though Havernick strenuously maintains that it is only figurative, 
being put for the judicial visitations of God. 1 

Chapter xvi. 1 — 20. predicts the utter ruin of the Jews by pesti- 
lence and deportation. It belongs to the reign of Jehoiakim, not to 
that of Jehoiachin into which Hitzig puts both it and xv. 1 — 9. 
before it. 

In chapter xvii. 1 — 18. the Jews are severely reproved for their 
attachment to idolatry, the consequences of which are also announced ; 
and for their undue reliance on human help. It belongs to the reign 
of Jehoiakim. 

Chapter xvii. 19 — 27. contains a distinct oracle relative to the ob- 
servance of the Sabbath. Hitzig places it in the reign of Jechoniah, 
but it belongs rather to that of Jehoiakim. 

Chapter xviii. 1 — 23. is an oracle threatening the ungrateful 
people with punishment by the Almighty Ruler ; appended to which 
is an imprecation on the part of the seer against his enemies. Hitzig 
has endeavoured to show that the date is Jehoiachin's reign ; but 
his method of proof is arbitrary and uncertain. 2 

Chapters xix. xx. This oracle foretels the ruin of the kingdom 
of Judah and the city of Jerusalem. A severe judgment is an- 
nounced against Pashur for apprehending and ill treating Jeremiah. 
The prophet complains of the persecution he met with. Probably 
the date is Jehoiachin's reign. 

The section consisting of chapters xxi. — xxiv. contains a prophecy 
describing the corruptness of the shepherds, the wickedness of the 
civil and spiritual rulers of the nation, kings and princes, prophets 
and priests. It was delivered towards the end of Hezekiah's reign, 
when the Chaldeans were commencing to besiege the city. On this 
occasion the prophet, who had been requested by the king himself to 
inquire of the Lord for his countrymen, takes the opportunity to 
speak expressly, not only about the future of the whole kingdom, but 
principally the royal house, the great men and leaders of the people. 
Hence he goes back and traces the causes of the great evils then 
present or impending. He adds a vision respecting the fate of the 
people carried away with Jechoniah, and those left behind in the 
land. 

Chapter xxv. predicts the subjugation of Judah together with that 

J Einleit. ii. 2. p. 213. 2 Dcr Prophet Jeremia, pp. 143, 144. 



On the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. 873 

of the neighbouring peoples, to the king of Babylon for seventy years. 
It belongs to the fourth year of Jehoiakim. 

Chapter xxvi., relating to the personal danger of Jeremiah, belongs 
to the beginning of Jehoiakiin's reign, as is stated in the inscrip- 
tion. Hitzig, indeed, argues that it is spurious ] ; but it is found in 
the LXX. The reason why chapter xxv. is placed before the pre- 
sent one, seems to be because of the comprehensive character of 
its contents. 

Chapter xxvii. 1 — 22. is an oracle warning Zedekiah and others 
to give no heed to suggestions counselling revolt from the king of 
Babylon. It belongs to the reign of Zedekiah. 

Chapter xxviii. is directed against a false prophet, Hananiah, whose 
death is foretold within the year. It belongs to the same time as the 
last, with which it is closely connected. 

Chapter xxix. contains an epistle addressed to the exiles who had 
been carried away with Jeconiah, admonitory and comforting. Ap- 
pended to it is an oracle again/ - 1 the false prophet Shemaiah. The 
time is about the same as the last, but a little earlier. 

In chapters xxx. — xxxiii. are predictions of the restoration of 
Israel. They are placed together because their contents are alike, 
not because they were written at the same time. Chapters xxx. and 
xxxi. predict a happy and glorious condition for Israel and Judah. 
Here the theme is not so much the restoration of the Jews, as their 
future during the new dispensation, when they should be converted 
to Christianity, and Israel, consisting of Jew and Gentile, be blessed 
with salvation. We infer from xxx. 1—3., that these prophecies 
were not delivered in public in the form they now have, but were 
composed agreeably to former revelations for the benefit of pos- 
terity as well as contemporaries, after the eighth year of Zedekiah's 
reign. 

Chapters xxxii. and xxxiii. relate to the same subject as the last, 
but are less elevated and comprehensive in their contents. In them 
are predicted the taking and burning of Jerusalem, the restoration of 
Judah and Israel, and the glorification of the theocracy. The date is 
the eighth year of Zedekiah's reign. Why they were put after xxx. 
and xxxi., though in point of time they precede, is uncertain. Hitzig 2 
thinks that it arose from the fact of xxxii. and xxxiii. having been 
already written, when God addressed the command in xxx. 2. to the 
prophet. More probable is the explanation of Havernick 3 , that the 
nature of the contents which are more general led to the position of 
the chapters. 

xxxiv. 1 — 7. contains an oracle respecting the fate of Zede- 
kiah. This belongs to the reign of that monarch. 

xxxiv. 8 — 22. contains another prophecy occasioned by the re-en- 
slavement of those that had been set free by their masters. It belongs 
to the same time as the last. 

xxxv. 1 — 19. records the example of the house of Rechab. This 
piece belongs to the fourth or fifth year of Jehoiakim. 

1 Der Prophet Jcremia, p. 207. 2 Ibid. p. 241. 3 Einleit. ii. 2. p. 218. 



874 Introduction to the Old Testament, 

xxxvi. 1 — 32. relates how a collection of oracles of Jeremiah is 
burnt, but restored by the author. It belongs to the reign of 
Jehoiakim. 

xxxvii. 1 — 21. relates to the treatment of the prophet himself; 
how he was thrown into a dungeon and released, but still kept in 
confinement. It belongs to the reign of Hezekiah. Hitzig concludes 
that it was not before the summer of 58 9. l 

xxxviii. 1 — 28. also relates to the treatment of Jeremiah ; how 
he was thrown into a miry dungeon, but again delivered from it. 
The date is much the same as the last, but somewhat later. 

Chapter xxxix. describes the capture of Jerusalem, with its conse- 
quences, and how it fared with the prophet at that time. An oracle 
concerning Ebedmelech is appended. Of course this belongs to the 
reign of Zedekiah. 

Chapters xl. — xliv. are historical, giving an account of the prophet's 
life, after the destruction of Jerusalem, among the people whom the 
Chaldeans left in the land before and after the flight into Egypt. 
They may be thus divided: xl. 1 — 6., where we read that Jeremiah 
has his choice to go to Babylon, or remain in Judea; xl. 7 — xli. 18., 
stating how the dispersed Jews repair to Gedaliah, his murder by 
Ishmael, and the release of those who were captives under him ; 
xlii. 1 — 22., showing how the prophet dissuades his fellow-country- 
men from going down into Egypt; xliii. 1 — 13., relating how his 
advice was rejected, and the consequent departure into Egypt, where 
Jeremiah foretels the invasion and conquest of that country by the 
Chaldeans ; xliv. 1 — 30., denouncing destruction to all the Jews who 
willingly went down to Egypt, and persevered in their idolatry, &c. 
Thus this section is related to the preceding chronologically as well 
as by subject. 

xlv. 1 — 5. is an oracle containing a promise to Baruch that his life 
should be preserved by a special Providence. According to date, it 
should be after chapter xxxvi. 

In chapters xlvi. — li. we have a series of oracles against foreign 
nations. 

xlvi. 1 — 12. is a triumphal discourse respecting the defeat of the 
Egyptians. 

xlvi. 13 — 28. contains a threatening oracle against Egypt, which 
was to be conquered by Nebuchadnezzar. Both were occasioned by 
Nebuchadnezzar's victory over Pharaoh Necho, in the fourth year of 
Jehoiakim. 

In chapter xlvii. is a threatening prediction respecting the Philis- 
tines, who were to be subdued by Nebuchadnezzar. 

Chapter xlviii. contains a similar prediction respecting Moab. 

xlix. 1 — 6. is a prediction of the destruction of Ammon. 

xlix. 7 — 22. is against Edom. 

xlix. 23 — 27. is against Damascus. 

xlix. 28 — 33. is against Kedar and Hazor, or the nomad Arabs. 

All these prophecies in chapters xlvii., xlviii., and xlix., were oc~ 

Der Prophet Jeremia, u. s. w. p. 307. 



On the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. 875 

casioned by the same event as those in xlvi., and consequently 
belong to the reign of Jehoiakim. 

xlix. 34 — 39. predicts the conquest of Elam by the Chaldeans. 
This was delivered in the beginning of Zedekiah's reign, according 
to the inscription. But the inscription is incorrect. The date is the 
same as that of the preceding prophecies, as is shown by the coinci- 
dence of the place occupied by the prophecy here and in xxv. 25., as 
well as the similarity, for example, of verse 36. to verse 32., and of 
verse 39. to 6. 

Chapters 1. and li. contain a prophecy against Babylon, be- 
longing to the fourth year of Zedekiah, according to the epilogue, 
li. 59—64. 

Chapter Hi., containing an account of the catastrophe of Judah 
and Jerusalem, and the later fortunes of Jehoiakim, was appended 
after Jeremiah's time. 

Although any chronological table can only be an approach to the 
truth, the following may be offered as an attempt: — 



Cli. 



Under 


Under 


Under 


Under 


After the 


JOSIAH. 


Jehoiakim. 


Jehoiachin. 


Zedekiah. 


Destruction 
of the City. 


i. — xii. 6. 


Ch. xii. 7— 
xviii. xxv. 
xxvi. xxxv. 
xxxvi. xlv. 
xlvi. xlvii. — 
xlix. 


Ch. xix. xx. 


Ch. xxl — xxiv. 
xxvii. xxviii. 
xxix. xxx. — 
xxxiii.xxxiv. 
xxxvii. 
xxxviii. 
xxxix. xL — 
xliv. xlix. 34 
—39. 1. li. 


Ch. lii. 



The diversities of expositors are greatest in determining the dates 
of the first twenty chapters, as may be seen in De Wette ', where the 
times from Movers, Maurer, Knobel, Hitzig, Ewald, &c, are given. 
It would be tedious to adduce all the circumstances which lead to 
the dates just assigned. They are not very palpable or convincing in 
themselves ; nor can any good data be got for this purpose. We 
must take such as exist, and use them in the best manner possible. 

The first chapter serves as an introduction to the whole book ; and 
the inscription in i. 1 — 3. we should be inclined to limit to chapters 
i. — xxxix., in opposition to the opinion of Havernick and Keil. 

The greater number of the pieces contained in the book of Jere- 
miah have escaped the ordeal of negative criticism unharmed. Their 
authenticity and integrity have been admitted. This shows that the 
individuality of the prophet is well marked and easily discerned. 
But all the parts have not been allowed to pass as authentic or 
genuine. The following have been combated. 

x. 1 — 16. is maintained by Movers 2 , De Wette 3 , and Hitzig 4 , 
to be unauthentic, except the verses wanting in the LXX. ; viz. 

1 Einleit. § 219. a. pp. 331, 332. 

2 De utriusque recensionia Jerem. indole, &c., p. 43. etseqq. 

3 Einleit. p. 326. 4 Der Prophet Jeremia, u. s. w. p. 82. 



876 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

6 — 8. 10., according to the last critic ; though De Wette holds these 
verses to be interpolations in the Masoretic text. This is done on 
the ground of the warning against soothsaying and idolatry in verses 
2 — 5., and the Chaldee eleventh verse, which are supposed to show 
a writer living in the time of the exile. And as the mode of writing 
is that of Isaiah xl. — lxvi., the piece is attributed to the pseudo- 
Isaiah. 

These considerations are quite insufficient to support the conclu- 
sion derived from them. When it is said that the warning in verses 
2 — 5. would have been useless, and out of place to the contempo- 
raries of Jeremiah, some parts of the preceding chapter are over- 
looked (ix. 24, 25.), where to the people of Judah dispersion among 
the heathen is announced as a punishment for their idolatry. 

But the eleventh verse is an interpolation, which interrupts the 
connection, and cannot be looked upon as originating in the desire of 
the prophet to warn his countrymen against idolatry, even before 
they should be carried to Babylon, and to suggest to them words for 
answering the Chaldee-speaking idolaters there ; because the intro- 
ductory terms, as well as the words themselves, are in Chaldee. The 
verse interrupts the argument, and is spurious. The style of the 
section is certainly like that of the last twenty-seven chapters of 
Isaiah, as Kueper has shown by a comparison of phrases and words. 1 
But this is owing to the manner of Jeremiah, which is to imitate 
earlier prophets. Besides, ideas and expressions in the verses are 
peculiar to Jeremiah ; so ?3p, used of idols, occurring inverses 3. 15., 
is similarly applied in ii. 5. ; Ofi'lK, for DriX, verse 5. ; and ny.3 
Drnp5, verse 15., are found in viii. 12., vi. 15., xlix. 8., xi. 23. It is 
a gratuitous assumption to say that the pseudo-Isaiah imitated the 
prophet here, as Ewald and Umbreit assert. Nor can any weight 
be attached to the omission of verses 6, 7, 8. 10, in the LXX., who 
often took great liberties with the Hebrew text. 2 

Again, chapter xxv. lib — 14a. are pronounced spurious by Hitzig, 
chiefly because of the specific nature of the prophecy respecting the 
seventy years' captivity in Babylon. He supposes that the last half 
of the fourteenth verse belongs to the first half of the eleventh. The 
last half, however, of the thirteenth verse is an interpolation, because 
the predictions against the nations which occur in the book after- 
wards cannot have formed part of it when the prophecy in this 25th 
chapter was delivered. It is possible, indeed, that the words may 
have been inserted by the prophet himself after the completion of 
the book ; but it is not probable. 

xxvii. 7. is pronounced spurious by Movers, Hitzig, and 
De Wette, chiefly because it is omitted in the LXX. But the 
Greek translators must have omitted it, because it did not agree 
with their opinion respecting the duration of the exile. In like 
manner, xxvii. 16 — 21. cannot be an interpolation or interpolated 
because given in another form in the Greek version, since the trans- 

1 Jeremias Librornm Saerorum interpres atque vindcc, p. 175. et scqq. 

2 Comp. Havernick's Einleit. ii. 2. p. 224. etseqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. 877 

lators took liberties with the text. The real cause why it is rejected 
is the want of belief in predictions. Accordingly, both Movers and 
Hitzig declare it to be a vaticinium ex eventu. 

xxxiii. 14 — 26. is also said to be an interpolation, both on 
internal and external evidence. Internal grounds are found in 
the promise of the absolute perpetuity of the Davidic and Levitical 
succession (17, 18, 21, 22.). But no lineal descendant of David, 
after Zedekiah, occupied his throne ; and the Levites continued to 
officiate no longer than the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans. 
The LXX. also omit the verses. The alleged difficulties disappear 
as soon as the true interpretation is discovered. Both David and 
the Levites must be considered in their relation to the Messiah. 
They typified him in his kingly and priestly offices. Their line was 
perpetuated and fully realised in him. Hengstenberg has well de- 
fended the paragraph against Michaelis and Jahn, setting forth its 
true meaning. 1 

Another interpolation has been discovered in xxxix. 1, 2. 4 — 13. 
Here again both internal and external grounds are alleged against the 
words. The former are, the confounding of the time when the famine 
pressed sorest with that of the taking of the city, the contradiction 
between 11 — 13. and xl. 1 — 6., and the misapprehension on the part 
of the interpolator of lii. 15., as seen in the 9th verse. The external 
argument is the omission of the passage by the LXX. But these are 
quite insufficient grounds. Even Hitzig does not acknowledge the 
validity of some of them. Hiivernick's refutation, which is confirmed 
by the diction bearing the impress of Jeremiah's own authorship, is 
convincing and conclusive. 2 

In like manner chapters xxvii. xxviii. xxix. are said to have been 
elaborated by a later than Jeremiah. This has been inferred from 
the forms of the names, nw for -in;0T., n'piv for tajjyjy, n^ : , & c ., 
and the predicate so often added to the name of the prophet N^n 
(xxviii. 5, 6. 10—12. 15., xxix. 1.), which is wanting in the Septua- 
gint. These circumstances are of little moment. The forms of the 
names in question are used interchangeably with the fuller ones, and 
occur not merely in these chapters, but elsewhere in the book. They 
are also used by all writers of an intermediate and later period. As 
to the predicate attached to Jeremiah's name, it stands in opposition 
to the false prophets. He alone was the true prophet, to whom the 
name belonged of right ; and the tenor of these chapters required that 
the contrast should be marked. 3 

Again, chapters xxx. — xxxiii. are said to have been elaborated 
by a later hand, — by the pseudo-Isaiah. The chief proof of this 
is the style and manner of expression employed. But this is suf- 
ficiently explained by the peculiarity of Jeremiah to lean upon 
older prophets. Prophecies relating to the same subjects natu- 
rally bear some marks of similarity ; and it is universally admitted 
that Jeremiah is characterised by imitation. Movers finds another 

1 Christologie, vol. iii. p. 602. et seqq. ■ Einleit. ii. 2. p. 232. et seqq. 

3 See Kuep^'s Jcreniias, &c, p. 201. 



878 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

proof in Zechariah viii. 7, 8., where there is a quotation from Jere- 
miah xxxi. 7, 8. 33., and where in the 9th verse the author is spoken 
of as one who lived in the day that the foundation of the house of the 
Lord of hosts was laid. Hence the writer must have been contem- 
porary with Zechariah himself. But there is no quotation here from 
Jeremiah. The passage said to be such is made up of words selected 
from different prophets ; and the mention of prophets in the plural is 
evidence that Zechariah did not refer to one. 1 For these and other 
reasons Hitzig justly rejects the external argument. Nothing can 
show the arbitrariness of the criticism which has been employed in 
pointing out interpolations and similar phenomena in these chapters, 
more strongly than the great difference of opinion between Movers and 
Hitzig respecting them. All that has been advanced against their 
complete authenticity is as nothing when set over against the positive 
proofs in their favour. 

Chapter xlviii. is said not only to have been interpolated by the 
pseudo-Isaiah, but also to have been enriched with additions by a second 
elaborator. Such is the judgment of Hitzig. But we do not be- 
lieve that the judgment is sound. The interpolations which proceeded 
from this last person are said to betray unacquaintedness with his- 
torical and geographical relations, and a want of power over the 
Hebrew language. Hence he is put into the Maccabean period. All 
this is mere subjectivity. The argumentation of Hitzig, if indeed it 
can be called such, is baseless, as has been shown by Havernick. 2 The 
alleged interpolations prove no more than that the prophet has freely 
reproduced the predictions of Balaam and Isaiah against Moab. 

The predictions against Babylon in chapters 1. li. are said either to be 
spurious or interpolated. The latter is now the favourite hypothesis, 
having supplanted the former ; and is advocated by Movers, De Wette, 
Hitzig, and Nagelsbach. De Wette ascribes the interpolations and 
redaction of the piece (not its authorship, as Henderson erroneously 
states) to the pseudo-Isaiah ; whereas Ewald, rejecting the authen- 
ticity, had attributed the authorship to him. 

The arguments of both parties, of those who reject the authenticity 
and of those who, while maintaining substantial authenticity, find in- 
terpolations and the marks of a later hand elaborating the Avhole, are 
combined by Keil 3 in one summary view, as follows : — 

1. There are many repetitions in which Jeremiah's genuine manner 
is seen only in particulars, though in numerous passages ; and the 
places repeated are often entirely modified and altered. 

2. There are new ideas entirely foreign to Jeremiah, referring to a 
later time : Babylon already conquered by Cyrus, though, contrary to 
expectation, spared and not destroyed ; a kingdom thoroughly dete- 
riorated, and unable to avert its final overthrow ; the prophetically 
violent rebellion against the Chaldean rulers, and the public summons 
to all the brethren living in Babylon to flee from a city consigned to 
destruction, and return to the holy land ; the undisguised designation 

1 Comp. Kueper, p. 149. et seqq., 171. et seqq.; and Havernick ii. 2. p. 231. 

2 Einleit. ii. 2. p. 234. 3 Einleit. p. 294. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. 879 

of the Medes and other northern nations as the deadly enemies of 
Babylon. All this is foreign to Jeremiah, improbable, and even im- 
possible in his case. 

3. The play upon the names TO for Sna (li. 41.) ; ^p T 2% heart of 
mine opponents, for D^'gO (li. 1.) ; and similar paraphrastic words for 
Chaldean names (1. 10.). 

4. There are words entirely new, peculiar to Ezekiel and still later 
writers, as JJD, nn? (li. 23. 25. 57.); D^a (1. 2.) O^Z, prophets causing 
to err (1. 36.) ; DnpO, to banish (1. 21. 26., li. 3., also xxv. 9.). 

5. There is great similarity between 1. 27., li. 40., and Isaiah xxxiv. 
6., &c. ; between 1. 39. and Isaiah xxxiv. 14.; between li. 1. 60. 
&c, and Isaiah xxxiv. 16. 

These arguments are not formidable. As to 1., it is well known 
that Jeremiah is accustomed to repeat himself. But it is asserted 
that the repetitions of Jeremiah are more in the mass ; and that in 
them he is faithful to himself. This is incorrect to a large extent. 
In the use of former utterances the same freedom and independence 
are shown here which are visible elsewhere ; while all are appropriate. 
Many particulars stated in No. 2. will not stand the test ; and beneath 
all lurks the one preconceived idea that proper prediction did not 
belong to the prophets. The unbiblical notion that the prophets 
never foretold definite future events, has tinged much of this negative 
criticism of the prophetic writings. 

It is a misconception of the ideal stand-point of the prophet in the 
future to suppose that he speaks of the conquest of Jerusalem as 
already past. He uses indeed the preterite tense ; but that arises 
from his seeing the events internally as present. Hence such expres- 
sions as ?35 r H??3 (1. 2.) are easily explained, especially as it is put 
beyond doubt by the future *15?F) in the ninth verse. There are not 
a few places in which the conquest is shown to be impending, not past, 
as 1. 3. 8, 9. 14—16. 18. 21. 26. 29. 34. 41—46. 51. &c. As to the 
spirit he manifests towards the Chaldeans — revenge, burning zeal, 
haste and impatience, sarcasms, and ferocious joy — nothing is recog- 
nised in it inconsistent with a true prophet. The Babylonians were 
the enemies of God and the theocracy ; the redemption of the covenant 
people demanded their overthrow. The enemy of Babylon was the 
friend of God. When the Medes are named as the leading foes of 
Babylon, the fact shows that the writer lived before it was taken, 
since in the post-exile writers Cyrus is commonly called the king of 
Persia. (2 Chi-on. xxvi. 22. ; Ezra, i. 1. &c, iv. 5. &c.) 

In relation to No. 3., such play on words is not unknown to Jere- 
miah, as may be seen in xx. 3., xxii. 11. 24. 28. 

No. 4. is of little consequence, though proceeding from Ew r ald. 
D^S is taken from Isaiah xli v. 25.; D' l >')?3 from Leviticus" xxvi. 30., 
Deut. xxix. 16. The other words derived from the Babylonians may 
surely have become known to Jeremiah as well as Ezekiel who was 
not much younger than he. 

No. 5. The similarity between the 34th chapter of Isaiah and the 
present chapters is palpable. It arises, however, from the fact of 



880 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Jeremiah having read the former, and imitated the ideas and expres- 
sions in it after his manner. 1 

It is admitted even by Hitzig, that the usus loquendi, imagery, 
style, turns of expression, show Jeremiah to have written this pro- 
phecy ; and as to the interpolations, which are differently specified 
by critics, the assumption of them rests upon mistaken views of pro- 
phecy generally, or upon incorrect opinions respecting the authenti- 
city of the places Avhich they copy either in Isaiah or Jeremiah himself. 

Chapter Hi. is almost verbally the same as 2 Kings xviii. — xxv. 30., 
forming an historical appendix to the prophecies of Jeremiah which 
terminate with the words at the close of chapter li. in the 64th verse. 
Some, however, suppose that it was written by Jeremiah himself, and 
appended to the collection of his prophecies, to serve as an historical 
account of the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and a 
supplement to the narrative. 2 It is scarcely probable, however, that 
Jeremiah himself survived the circumstances related in verses 31 — 34. ; 
and moreover, the account of the downfal of the kingdom is incom- 
plete. The statement too in Jeremiah li. 64., thus far the words of 
Jeremiah, implies that what follows did not proceed from him. Others, 
as Keil, think that the chapter in question contains an extract made 
by the collector of Jeremiah's prophecies, out of a copious description 
of the last days of Judah composed by Jeremiah or Baruch. 3 This 
is unlikely. Others suppose that the appendix was taken from 2 
Kings. It is no objection to this view that verses 28 — 30. are want- 
ing in 2 Kings ; since they may easily have been interpolated. Nor 
is it a valid objection that 19 — 23. contain more copious accounts than 
those in 2 Kings xxv. 15 — 17., because the writer or compiler may 
not have been shut up to the one source, without liberty to add, sub- 
tract, or utter any new thing. The idea that the section having been 
appended by Jeremiah to his own prophecies was taken and put into the 
books of Kings is unlikely. Ewald regards it as an extract from the 
annals of the kingdom. 4 

The arrangement of the prophecies is different in the Hebrew and 
the Septuagint. In the latter, those respecting foreign nations oc- 
' cupy another position, coming after xxv. 13. They are also differently 
disposed, as the following table shows :— - 



Hebrew Text. 


xlix 


34- 


-39. 


xlvi. 


2— 


-12. 




13- 


-28. 




50, 


51. 


xlvii 


1- 


-7. 


xlix. 


7— 


22. 


xlix 


1— 


-6. 


xlix. 


28- 


-33 


xlix 23- 


—27. 



Text 


o/LXX 


xxv. 


34- 


-39- 


XXVI. 


1- 


-u. 




12 


—26. 




27 


28. 


XXIX 


1- 


-7. 


XXIX 


. 7- 


-22. 


XXX. 


1— 


-5. 


XXX. 


6- 


-11. 


XXX. 


12 


—16. 



1 See Kueper's Jeremias, &c, p. 106. et seqq., and Havernick's Einleit. ii. 2. p. 236. 
et seqq. 

2 Havernick, Einleit. ii. 2. p. 248. etseqq. 3 Einleit, p. 297. 
4 Die Propheten des altea Bundes, vol. ii. p. 22. 






On the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. 881 

Hebrew Text TextofLXX. 
xlviii. .... xxxi. 
xxv. 15 — 38. ... xxxii. 
xxvi. xlv. - xxxiii. — li. 

lii. .... lii. 

The change in the order in which these prophecies are arranged is 
seen in the following table : — 

Hebrew Text. Text o/LXX. 

Egypt .... Elam. 

Philistines - Egypt. 

Moab ... - Babylon. 

Ammon ... - Philistines. 

Edom - Edom. 

Damascus - Ammon. 

Kedar «... Kedar. 

Elam .... Damascus. 

Babylon - Moab. 

Besides this, on comparing the Masoretic recension and the Sep- 
tuagint text, a number of larger and smaller variations are seen, for 
which it is difficult to account. Jerome, who is followed by Grabe, 
attributes these deviations to the mistakes of transcribers ; which is 
most improbable. Why should the transcribers of Jeremiah have 
made so many more mistakes than those of other books made up of 
pieces not collected by the writers themselves ? Spohn accounts for 
them by the carelessness and arbitrariness of the Greek translator. 
This is substantially the view taken by Keil, who dwells upon the 
mistakes and arbitrary procedure of him who put the book into Greek, 
as he blundered, added to, abridged, explained, attempted to improve, 
the original before him. Others, as Michaelis, Eichhorn, Jahn, Ro- 
senmiiller, Dahler, assume a twofold recension of the book, reckoning 
either the Greek or the Hebrew the more complete and purer one ; 
but with many diversities attributable to the translator, or to the 
Hebrew and Greek transcribers. The most probable hypothesis 
appears to be this of a double recension, implying, however, that 
neither the Masoretic nor the Greek has preserved the text in its 
original condition. Sometimes the one, sometimes the other, pre- 
sents the true form ; but neither icholly. By carefully collating them 
both, the primitive text may be approximated. The question is one 
that admits merely of presumptive evidence. It cannot be settled 
by a priori considerations ; nor should it be judged by prepossessions 
in favour of the Masoretic recension, or of the Greek text. By 
putting together both texts, and carefully weighing them in the same 
scale, their relative value may be determined with probability. 

1. The Septuagint has additions to the Masoretic text, for the sake 
of completing, illustrating, or strengthening the sense, taken from 
other places or parallels. Thus, in iii. 18., ical airb iraaoin^.wv ycopwv: 
iii. 19., fysvotro Kvpis: vii. 4., on to irapairav ov/c uxpsX^aovaiv v/xds: 
xiv. 13., errl ri]9 <yr)s: i. 17., ore fiSTa crov ijco elfu tov l^aipuadai as, 
\eyei Kvpios. 

2. The Masoretic text has also similar additions which are wanting 

VOL. II. 3 L 



882 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

in the LXX. We cannot say, however, with De Wette, that they are 
more numerous than the interpolations of the Greek. The reverse 
seems to be the fact. vii. 27., ni?ME! &\ Drrk my T ) y% w$\ *6\ : 
this is taken from verses 13. 26. xxviii. 11., D»t?J 0*6^ -1^3, taken 
from the third verse, xxviii. 16., Plin* b$ niS" 1 ? rnD »?. Other exam- 
ples may be seen in Movers, De Wette, and Hitzig. 

3. Many additions of this kind which the one text has in one place, 
the other text has in another. Thus, xlix. 24. in the Hebrew, " an- 
guish and sorrows have taken her as a woman in travail." In viii. 21. 
the LXX. have coStvss <bs rsKrovarjs. Heb. xxiv. 10., " and to their 
fathers : " a similar addition is in the LXX., xvii. 23. 

4. The Masoretic text has a few larger unauthentic additions, as 
viii. 10 — 12. taken from vi. 13 — 15. 

5. Both texts have ornamental additions, which are not taken from 
another part. Thus, in xiv. 15. the LXX. have cnrodavovvrai'. xx. 9. 

6. More frequently in the Septuagint, less frequently in the He- 
brew, occur additions which are designed to make the sense or the 
thing itself more apparent, xxxv. 5., Dft\>S*.. xix. 1., irpbs fxs. In 
xlvii. 4. the additional words nin^D **? nn0 D*wfy? m ttyp. T!#, dis- 
turb the sense. The LXX. give a simpler arid more suitable mean- 
ing, " The Lord shall destroy the remnant of the islands." 1 

7. In both texts different readings occur in different places, which 
are mostly intended to make the sense easier, xxii. 5. 7rot,^ai]TS, LXX., 
equivalent to ^VM, according to the fourth verse, instead of -IJftJlfl-f. 

8. In both texts occur the usual variations of reading arising from 
writing the same word or letter twice, or from taking a gloss into the 
text. Thus, the Masoretic reading, xli. 9., Nin •invpr'T!?, was pro- 
bably bn\n 1-13 K-in. In vii. 24. niTi^a is a gloss taken from such 
passages as xvi. 12., xviii. 12., ix. 13. 

9. In the 52nd chapter the LXX. follow the text of 2 Kings xxv. 
We do not however think that, on this account, or intrinsically, it is 
older than the Masoretic text of 52nd, and therefore to be preferred, 
as De Wette believes. 2 

On the whole, we are disposed to think that the preference should 
be oftener given to the Masoretic than the Greek recension. The 
latter is judged much too unfavourably by Movers and De Wette. 
On the other hand, Kueper, Havernick, and Keil, in defending the 
Masoretic text on every occasion, and attributing all the variations to 
the Greek translator and his transcribers, err in the other extreme, 
advocating things incapable of maintenance. We fully admit that 
most of the examples of blundering ignorance, arbitrariness, careless- 
ness, designed additions and abbreviations, &c, heaped up by Keil 3 
with great particularity, are real ones ; but he has passed over analo- 
gous specimens which might be taken from the Hebrew. All the 
difference is that the number is much less in the latter. And it is 



1 See Movers De utriusque Recensionis, &c., indole, p. 22. 

2 Comp. Movers, and De Wette's Einleit. p. 327. et seqq. 

3 Einleit. p. 300. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. 883 

very much less than Movers supposes ; for not a few of his examples 
will not stand. 

Wichelhaus ' has written an elaborate dissertation, with the view 
of upholding the integrity of the Hebrew text; but, notwith- 
standing all the care and industry he has expended on the subject, 
we believe that he has been unsuccessful. Why should the trans- 
lator of Jeremiah be so unlike the translators of the other books as 
to make changes and innovations far more radical than any which 
they attempted ? Is it not surprising that he should have indulged 
in an arbitrary method to which any of their peculiarities are but a 
feeble approximation ? " That the Alexandrian interpreter of this 
book," says Wichelhaus, "with little restraint of himself, should 
proceed so confidently in changing the text, and be carried away to 
such an extent as to express sentiments obviously irregular, is not 
greatly to be wondered at." 2 Few impartial critics will approve of 
this statement, believing, as they must do, that so singular an 
exception to the rest must strike the reader as surprising. It is a 
hopeless task to lay the just burden of so many transpositions, 
changes, omissions, and additions, on the Greek interpreter, whoever 
he was. Even though he may have been incompetent for his task, 
which we do not deny, yet he was not singular in that respect. On 
the contrary, he seems to have been as well qualified for translating 
Jeremiah, as was the person who rendered Isaiah into Greek ; and 
Jeremiah, besides, is not a very difficult book, — certainly not so 
difficult as Ezekiel. Were it needful we might easily show how 
much more probable, in the judgment of the higher criticism, 
is the explanation which attributes various discrepancies to cor- 
ruption in the Hebrew, rather than the Greek. It cannot indeed 
be denied that the hypothesis of Movers is vulnerable in some 
of its details, as he explains them ; but no better method of harmo- 
nising the two documents has been proposed than his, viz., that they 
present two recensions of the original text, neither of which is the 
original and authentic one. Out of both, the higher criticism must 
call forth a text approaching very near the true one, since the cor- 
ruptions are divided between them. The chief fault in Movers's in- 
genious essay is his attributing more corruption to the Hebrew than 
the Greek ; whereas the reverse is in our opinion more probable. 

According to a statement in chapter xxxvi., the prophecies be- 
fore uttered by Jeremiah were committed to writing by Baruch ; 
and when the roll containing them was burned, they were rewritten 
and enlarged. There is no reason for supposing, with Movers, 
that in xxxvi. 9. the fourth year should be read instead of the fifth. 
The roll was written in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and de- 
stroyed in the fifth. That the second roll contained not merely the 
words of the first, but many others, we learn from xxxvi. 32. The 
collection thus made again by Baruch, from the mouth of Jeremiah, 
cannot be pointed out in the present book. The inscription in i. 
1 — 3. refers downward as far as the deportation to Babylon (chapter 

1 De Jeremias versione Alexandrina, Halis, 1847. 2 Pages 176, 177. 

3 L 2 



884 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

xxxix.); and from chapter xxi. later pieces belonging to Hezekiah's 
time are mixed with earlier ones. 

The origin of the present collection, as presented in the book of 
Jeremiah, cannot now be discovered. Historical testimony is want- 
ing in regard to the manner in which the work was formed. All 
that can be conjectured respecting it is derived from the state of the 
book itself, as it now appears. Hence very different hypotheses have 
been framed respecting the composition of the entire work ; its gra- 
dual growth, formation, and arrangement. The views of Eichhorn, 
Bertholdt, Movers, and Hitzig may here be safely omitted ; as they 
are very artificial, arbitrary, and improbable, though differing much 
from one another. All proceed on the assumption that Jeremiah 
himself took no leading part in the present arrangement, but that it 
was the work of one or more compilers. It is not surprising that De 
Wette should object to them as insufficient to explain all the phe- 
nomena. Much more probable is the view of Ewald 1 , with which 
that of Havernick 2 substantially agrees. Even here, however, there 
is cause for hesitation ; for we cannot assent to various things stated 
by Ewald. His ingenuity is, in this case, as elsewhere, exposed to 
the charge of arbitrariness. 

We suppose that after the destruction of the Jewish state Jere- 
miah enriched the earlier collection of his prophecies with those de- 
livered subsequently to the fourth year of Jehoiakim ; and put to- 
gether such as related to the people of Israel, adding the threatenings 
against foreign nations, and the promises of better times for Israel. 
In this manner the book has some plan. It is disposed according to 
a certain principle ; and is the very reverse of what Blayney calls it, 
" a preposterous jumbling together of the prophecies of the reigns of 
Jehoiakim and Zedekiah, in the seventeen chapters which follow the 
20th according to the Hebrew copies." 3 The arrangement is not 
chronological. It is so only in part ; for besides the chronological 
principle another was influential, viz. that of similarity of matter. 

Five books or sections may be distinguished : — 

I. Chapters i. — xxiv. These contain reproofs of the sins of the 
Jews, and the announcement of impending punishment. Here the 
chronological principle is subordinated to the arrangement of similar 
matter. 

II. A general review of all nations, the heathen as well as Israel 
(xlvi. — li.), which chapters have been transposed ; with an historical 
appendix, chapters xxv. — xxix. 

III. A representation of the hopes which Israel was warranted to 
entertain, chapters xxx. — xxxiii. 

IV. Chapters xxxiv. — xxxix. contain a number of short utterances 
proceeding from the prophet at different times, and put together be- 
cause they are all of a historical nature. 

V. Chapters xl. — xliv. relate to the prophet after the destruction 
of Jerusalem, among the remnant of the people in Palestine, with an 
appendix concerning Baruch, xlv. 

1 Die Propheten, u. s. w. p. 15. et seqq. Einleit. ii. 2. p. 206. et scqq. 

3 Notes on Jeremiah, p. 3. 



On the Book of the Prophet Jeremiah. 885 

VI. lii. is a later appendix. 

Where different parts were written, whether in Egypt or Palestine, 
it is impossible to tell. The arrangement, as it now exists, is different 
in some places from what it originally was. The pieces against foreign 
nations have been thrown to the end of the book. Various interpola- 
tions have also been made ; while verses and inscriptions have been 
occasionally transposed. Accordingly the primitive order, as it pro- 
ceeded from Jeremiah, or from Baruch under his eye, has been some- 
what disturbed. Some person or persons put their hands to the pro- 
phecies, and made different alterations in them, after the decease of 
the prophet. The final redactor was not Baruch, as Keil thinks. We 
must look for him at a later time ; how long after we cannot tell. 

The chief predictions relating to the Messiah are xxiii. 5, 6., where 
the mediatorial kingdom of Messiah is foretold. He is there called 
Jehovah our righteousness. In xxxi. 31 — 40., the new dispensation 
introduced by Christ is spoken of. Andinxxxiii. 14 — 26., the per- 
petuity of his regal and sacerdotal offices is affirmed. Some have also 
found a distinct prediction of the miraculous conception in xxxi. 22., 
" the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, a woman shall com- 
pass a man." But this is incorrect, the original words not bearing 
such sense. The meaning is, the Jewish church (here compared to a 
woman) will return to Jehovah (the man or husband) from whom she 
had apostatised. 

In the New Testament a few passages are quoted from Jeremiah, 
as Matt. ii. 17., xvi. 14.; Heb. viii. 8—12.; Matt, xxvii. 9. The 
last place occasions some difficulty, because the citation is not from 
any part of Jeremiah's book, but rather from Zechariah xi. 12, 13. 

The style of Jeremiah is such as was to have been expected from 
the character of his mind and the spirit of the times during which he 
lived. It is marked by feeling and pathos. He could not but be mourn- 
ful amid the desolations of his country ; and accordingly his tone is 
subdued, sorrowful, low-pitched. His mode of writing is soft, weak, 
diffuse, full of repetitions, and of standing ideas as well as expressions. 
The rhythm is not strongly marked; and the succession of ideas 
is devoid of height or comprehension. His flights are but short 
and occasional. Sorrow had bowed his spirit to the ground, and 
doubtless affected the language in which it found utterance ; yet his 
mind was not originally of such a cast as to soar high, or to grasp 
great ideas with force and present them with corresponding energy. 
Sometimes, indeed, the thoughts are elevated and independent, as in 
iii. 16., vii. 22. &c, xxxi. 31. &c. Sometimes also the mode of 
writing is compressed and energetic ; as in the first twelve chapters. 
But this was not his usual method ; since, though not uniform, he is 
commonly unoriginal and diffuse. The prophecies against foreign na- 
tions present the most favourable specimens of his manner and style. 
In them the tone is stronger and more animated. There the style 
attains to a kind of rhythm, after which it strives in vain in other 
places; though the attempt is apparent. The tone generally speaking 
is higher in threatenings ; while in admonitions, it sinks down almost to 
the level of prose. Long ago Jerome remarked a certain rusticity in 

3 L 3 



886 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

the expression ', of which Lowth says he could discover no vestige. 2 
Probably it lies in the nature of the diction, which, as we might ex- 
pect from the period, is degenerate and Chaldaising, as Knobel 3 has 
fully exemplified. Lowth judges too favourably when he says that 
'in the last six chapters Jeremiah approaches very near the sublimity 
of Isaiah ; and the repetition of the same assertion by Henderson, 
" there are portions of the book which little, if at all, fall short of the 
compositions of Isaiah," 4 occurs in a form still more incorrect. 
Scarcely more than half the book is poetical. 

The symbolical images contained in the prophet's visions are of an 
inferior order (i. 4 — 19., xxiv.). Nor are the symbolical actions, 
most of which are purely allegorical, not having actually occurred in 
outward history (xiii. xviii. xix. 1 — 13., xxvii. xxxii. xxxv.), skilfully 
contrived, with the exception of the last two. 

We have said that most of the symbolical actions were purely alle- 
gorical, nothing of what is actually described having happened in 
Jeremiah's outward history ; and if anything were wanting to show 
the correctness of this view, we should appeal to Henderson's attempt 
to explain them literally, especially his exegesis of xiii. 1 — 7. 



CHAP. XX. 

THE LAMENTATIONS OF JEREMIAH. 



The Hebrew name of these elegies is n^K, Hotv, which is the first 
word, according to a Jewish custom of designating a book by the 
initial term. They were likewise called by the Jews from their con- 
tents, n'Wp . By the LXX. the Greek word OpfjvoL is employed as 
the title ; which passed in the Vulgate into Lamentationes. They are 
Jive in number, not three, as Schumann asserts. 

In 2 Chron. xxxv. 25. we read, " And Jeremiah lamented for 
Josiah : and all the singing men and the singing women spake of 
Josiah in their lamentations to this day, and made them an ordinance 
in Israel; and behold, they are written in the Lamentations." De 
Wette thinks that this literary notice of the Chronicle-writer implies 
the author's belief that the Lamentations of Jeremiah were sung on the 
occasion referred to. 5 But it is not said that Jeremiah wrote his 
lament ; or that he caused others to write it. All that is implied in 
the words is, that there was a collection "of elegies or mourning odes 
for the dead, to which the lamentations of the singing men and women 
belonged, and which was used at the solemnities of interment con- 

1 Praef. in Jerem. 2 Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, Lect. xxi. 

3 Jeremias Chaldaizans, 1831. The list here given needs sifting. Comp. also Eich- 
horn's Einleit. vol. iv. p. 150. et scqq. Jahn's Einleit. iii. p -558. 

4 The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah and that of the Lamentations, introductory dis- 
sertation, p. 10. 

5 Einleit. p. 408. 



On the Lamentations of Jeremiah. 887 

ducted on the decease of different kings. 1 Nor is there any founda- 
tion for the opinion of Augusti 2 , that these lamentations were bor- 
rowed from that collection mentioned in the Chronicles. We believe 
that our Lamentations formed no part of the national collection at 
any time. 

Various writers are of opinion that the Lamentations were com- 
posed by the prophet on the death of Josiah. This was held by 
Jerome and Ussher ; but not by Josephus, as is often asserted, among 
others by Keil in bis Introduction to the Old Testament. Neither 
should Dathe and Michaelis be quoted as its advocates ; since both 
altered their view. There is no foundation for such an hypothesis. 
The whole tenor of the Lamentations is against it. The destruction 
of the holy city and temple, the overthrow of the state by the Chal- 
deans, had already taken place ; and the prophet bewails these na- 
tional calamities. 

The contents are briefly these : — 

1. In the first elegy the prophet begins with lamenting the sad 
reverse of fortune which his country had experienced, admitting, 
however, that all her disasters were the just consequence of national 
apostacy. Jerusalem herself is introduced to continue the complaint 
and solicit the divine compassion. Eusebius 3 , Horrer^ and Jahn, 
suppose that in this elegy the prophet deplores the deportation of 
Jehoiachin and ten thousand of the principal Jews to Babylon. (2 
Kings xxiv. 12. &c.) This is very improbable, as is also the hy- 
pothesis of Pareau 4 , that it was composed after the siege, which had 
been raised for a time, recommenced. (Jer. xxxvii. 5.) 

2. In the second the writer describes the dire effects of the 
divine anger in the subversion of the civil and religious constitution 
of the Jews. He represents the wretchedness of his country as 
unparalleled ; and accuses the false prophets of having contributed to 
her ruin by false messages. Jerusalem is entreated to cry to God 
with deep repentance for the removal of his heavy judgments. Jahn 
thinks 5 , that it was composed on the conquest of the city ; and Pareau 
agrees with him. 

3. Here the writer describes his own severe sufferings, and sets 
forth the inexhaustible mercies of God as the source of hope ; ex- 
horting his fellow-countrymen to patience and resignation under the 
divine chastisements. He asserts God's justice, and maintains that 
none has a right to complain when he is punished according to his 
deserts. Finally, he prays for deliverance, and vengeance on his 
country's enemies. Pareau supposes that this elegy was composed 
after Jeremiah's deliverance from the pit. (Jer. xxxviii. 6 — 13.) 

4. In the fourth elegy the poet contrasts the present wretched 
condition of the nation with its former prosperity, ascribing the 
change chiefly to the profligacy of its priests and prophets. The people 
confess their sins. Their enemies, the Edomites, are threatened with 
coming judgments, and Zion is comforted w T ith the hope of a final 

1 See Kalkar's Lamentationes critice et exegetice illustratse, p. 43. et seqq. 

- Einleit. p. 226. et seqq. 3 In a Catena ap. Ghisler, iii. b. 

4 Threni Jerem, pliilol. et crit. illustrate, p. 50. 5 Einleit. vol. ii. p. 572. 

3l4 



888 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

cessation of her calamities. Pareau supposes that the elegy was 
written after the Chaldeans had broken into the city, and Zedekiah 
was taken prisoner. (Jer. xxxix. 1 — 5.) 

5. This elegy is in the form of a prayer, in which the people de- 
plore the loss of their country and the miseries under which they 
groaned, supplicating Jehovah to pity their wretchedness, and restore 
them to his favour. According to Jahn and Pareau, this elegy was 
composed after the destruction of the city. It is not likely that the 
poems were written during the siege, storming, and taking of the 
city, as is supposed by Pareau ; for amid the abominations and 
horrors of such scenes, they could scarcely have been calmly com- 
posed in an artificial form like that which they present. Probably 
all were written between the second and third deportation of the 
people, except the fifth, which appears to have been composed after 
the final destruction of the city, perhaps in Egypt. It is impossible 
to determine the exact times and circumstances in which each origi- 
nated. They must have been written very soon after one another, 
yet not precisely at the same time, nor probably all in one place. 
The conjecture of Tomline 1 , that while Jeremiah mourns the deso- 
lation of Judah and Jerusalem, he may be considered as prophetically 
painting the still greater miseries they were to suffer at some future 
time, is without foundation, the 22nd verse of the fourth chapter not 
supporting it, as he incorrectly supposes. 

Diversity of opinion has existed respecting the connection sub- 
sisting between these five poems. The older critics, Eichhorn and 
Bertholdt, looked upon them as isolated productions composed by 
Jeremiah at different times ; the former asserting that the compiler 
endeavoured to bring connection into them by putting them toge- 
ther. But more recent scholars have endeavoured to show that they 
form in themselves a connected whole. In this respect, however, 
they have not been very successful. De Wette, Ewald, Keil, have 
tried to describe the nature of that connection; but by no means 
convincingly, as Thenius has proved. 2 It is impossible to point out 
any close relation of the elegies to one another, so as that they 
should present a complete whole; yet we believe that all the diversity 
belonging to them is accounted for by the assumption of a short 
interval or intervals of time having elapsed between their compo- 
sition. The leading idea in all is much the same. Bishop Lowth's 
description is sufficiently accurate when he says, "that the whole 
bears rather the appearance of an accumulation of corresponding 
sentiments than an accurate and connected series of different ideas 
arranged in the form of a regular treatise." 3 

The form of these poems is peculiar. With the exception of the 
last, they are acrostic or alphabetical. The first two consist of long 
verses, with three lines each. Every line, again, is regularly sub- 
divided into two parts of unequal length, by a caesura in the sense. 
The third agrees with the first two in these particulars, but has the 

1 Elements of Christian Theology, vol. i. pp. 112, 113. 

2 Die Klagelieder erklart, Vorbemerkungen, p. 119. et seqq. 

3 Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, translated by Gregory and edited by Stowe, p. 189. 



On the Lamentations of Jeremiah. 889 

additional characteristic of every line beginning with a letter of the 
alphabet in succession, so that each verse begins three times with the 
same letter, and is divided by the Masoretes into three verses. The 
fourth elegy is distributed into verses having two lines of unequal 
length, with a caesura. In the fifth, alphabetical arrangement is 
abandoned, except that the number of letters in the alphabet has 
regulated the number of the short verses, each consisting of two 
lines. 

The form is not carried out in all places with undeviating re- 
gularity. Here and there it is broken. Thus, in i. 7. and ii. 9. 
verses of four lines each occur in the midst of those that have but 
three ; and in 2, 3, 4. the verse 3 stands before the verse V. Hence 
some officious critics have attempted to alter the text, transposing 
or emending most unwarrantably where no change should be at- 
tempted. 

The author of these elegies has been all but universally regarded as 
Jeremiah. Tradition names him as the writer, as may be seen in the 
LXX., Jerome, the Targum, and the Talmud. Of these witnesses 
the first two alone are of value ; for the Targum referred to is post- 
Talmudic, and the place in the Babylonian Gemara ascribes the au- 
thorship of the books of Kings to Jeremiah, and states other absurd 
opinions. At the commencement of the Greek translation the fol- 
lowing sentence occurs : " And it came to pass, after Israel was 
taken captive, and Jerusalem made desolate, that Jeremias sat weep- 
ing, and lamented with this lamentation over Jerusalem, and said." 
This has been copied into the Yulgate and Arabic versions. It is 
debated whether or not the verse in question existed in the Hebrew 
copies from which the Greek version was made. Thenius thinks l 3 
from the tenor of the words, that they were taken from the Hebrew ; 
and in reply to the question why the redactors of the Hebrew text 
transmitted to us, did not receive the verse, forming as it did a con- 
stituent part of the Hebrew MS. containing the Lamentations, he 
says that the persons mentioned were in doubt whether Jeremiah 
composed the first elegy. We do not agree with this opinion. 
Jerome seems to have regarded the verse as spurious ; at least he did 
not admit it into his version. With the old tradition respecting 
authorship, most critics think the contents, spirit, tone, and language 
to be in harmony. Such is the judgment of Eichhorn, Bertholdt, 
De Wette, Keil, and others; but Thenius objects on the ground 
that there is a perceptible difference among the poems. According 
to him an ordinary aesthetic feeling may perceive a distinction 
between the second and fourth, compared with the first and third. 
The former two are pronounced truly excellent, freely moving, well 
arranged, and naturally progressing songs ; the latter, much weaker, 
struggling with the form, artificially elaborated in manifold ways, 
accumulating images here and there, running into one another and 
issuing in reminiscences, though in other respects they are excel- 
lent, and their contents entirely suitable. 2 In pursuance of such 

1 Die Klagelieder erklart, p. 118. 2 Ibid. p. 120. 



890 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

comparison the critic asserts that the person who wrote ii. and iv. 
cannot have written iii. 1 — 20., since it is impossible that passages 
like the latter could have proceeded from Jeremiah, who preserves 
measure and moderation even in the most animated parts of his pro- 
phecies, and no where lays himself open to the charge of springing 
from one image to another, as is the case here. It is added that i. 
iii. v. were written under relations which do not apply to Jeremiah, 
as appears from i. 9c. lie, iii. 34. &c, v. 4, 5. 9, 10. ; and that 
various passages in them refer to the peculiar condition of the writer 
and to a time subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem by several 
years. (Compare i. 1. 3., iii. 25. &c.,34. &c, 58. &c, v. 18.) Finally, 
the critic declares that it is impossible to explain satisfactorily the 
fact that in ii. — iv. the verses beginning with 2 precede V ; while in i. 
the usual alphabetical order appears. On these grounds mainly 
Thenius supposes that all the elegies did not proceed from Jeremiah. 
The second and fourth belong to him ; whereas the first was written 
by a poet who was left behind in the land of Palestine, some time 
after the destruction of Jerusalem ; and the fifth was composed by a 
person acquainted with the second ; the third was written by another. 
The analogies between i. iii. and v. are accounted for by the circum- 
stance that their authors were contemporaries of Jeremiah, and pro- 
bably fellow-citizens, who had heard the prophet, and perhaps pos- 
sessed some of his written utterances. 

These particulars do not appear sufficient to justify the con- 
clusion which Thenius derives from them. The great stumbling- 
block, in his eyes, seems to be iii. 1 — 20., whose manner of ex- 
pression differs from the usual method of Jeremiah. The images 
certainly follow one another in quick succession, and are dissimilar to 
places where Jeremiah complains of his fate ; as Jeremiah xv. 1 0. 
15 — 18., xviii. 19. &c, xx. 7 — 18 ; but the difference of circum- 
stances will go far to account for the diversity in question. Here 
the prophet speaks not so much in his own name as in that of the 
faithful Israelites. Wishing to give a condensed view of the miseries 
to which he and the people of God had been subjected, he accumulates 
images in rapid succession, for that purpose. That the style of Je- 
remiah was not always the same — diffuse, weak, repetitious; that it 
is sometimes characterised by strength and variety of imagery, may 
be seen in the sixth chapter. When the latter part of that chapter, 
especially, 24 — 30., is compared with the verses before us, the pro- 
bability of these too having proceeded from the prophet himself 
increases. To say that he could not have written them, is to limit 
the range of his powers and the extent of his inspiration. 

When it is asserted that i. iii. and v. were written in relations that 
do not suit Jeremiah, there is room for hesitation and dispute. What 
is there in i. 9 c. or 11 c. that is not applicable to the prophet? or 
in iii. 34. and following verses? or in v. 4, 5. 9, 10.? Nothing, as 
we believe ; on the contrary, v. 53, 54. are exactly applicable to the 
situation of the prophet. 

Nor is it necessary to suppose that the three poems, i. iii. v., must 



On the Lamentations of Jeremiah. 891 

have been composed some years after the destruction of Jerusalem, 
with the exception of the last. The passages in i. and iii. adduced 
by Thenius do not support the opinion ; and even if they did, the 
prophet might have composed them a few years after the destruction 
of Jerusalem. 

As to the difference between the alphabetical order in ii. — iv. and 
i., little weight can be attached to it, whatever may have been the 
cause. It is satisfactorily enough accounted for by the fact that the 
prophet did not wish to bind himself to one artificial method ; but, 
becoming weary of the fetters, or, for the sake of variety, introduced 
diversity. We should not refer it to forgetfulness on the part of 
Jeremiah, as Berth oldt does 1 ; nor to accident with Ewald. 2 Why 
should not the writer be allowed the freedom implied in this circum- 
stance ? Surely there is no proof that the order of the letters 3 and 
V was fluctuating in the time of Jeremiah, and that the author of i. 
followed the new order, Jeremiah the old. 

In opposition to every objection that can be urged against the 
Jeremiah-authorship of i. iii. v., the same writer affords unmistake- 
able evidence of his identity in all. Everything agrees with Jere- 
miah himself — spirit, manner, and language. He appears as an eye- 
witness who had himself suffered the bitterest things along with 
others. (Compare iii. with Jeremiah xv. 15. &c, xvii. 13. &c., 
xx. 7. &c. ; iii. 64—66. with Jeremiah xvii. 18.; iv. 17—20. with 
the entire fifth elegy.) Here, as in Jeremiah's book, the dispersion 
of the people with the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple are 
said to arise from the iniquities of the covenant-people. (Com- 
pare i. 5. 8. 14. 22., iii. 39. 42., iv. 6. 22., v. 16., with Jeremiah xiii. 
22. 26., xiv. 7., xvi. 10. &c, xvii. 1. &c.) Their sinful trusting in 
false prophets and profligate priests (compare ii. 14., iv. 13 — 15. with 
Jeremiah ii. 7, 8., v. 31. &c. &c.) ; their false hopes of security in 
Jerusalem (iv. 12. with Jeremiah vii. 3 — 15.); vain trust in the 
help of feeble and faithless allies (compare i. 2. 19., iv. 17. with Je- 
remiah ii. 18. 36., xxx. 14., xxxvii. 5 — 10.), are characteristic of the 
prophet himself. 3 The diction too is his. Negligence of style, mo- 
notony, frequent repetition of the same ideas and images, appear here. 
Characteristic words and turns of expression present themselves in 
great number, as is shown by the frequently used "13$ and *i?p T\2 "i?^, 
ii. 11. 13., iii. 47, 48., iv. 10. compared with Jeremiah iv. 6. 20., vi. 

I. 14., viii. 11. 21., xiv. 17., xxx. 12. &c. ; DW, or nypn IT, i. 16., ii. 

II. 18., iii. 48. &c. compared with Jeremiah viii. 23., ix, 17., xiii. 
17., xiv. 17.; ''Sy ri2 n>iri3 5 i. 15., ii. 13. compared with Jeremiah xiv. 
17., xlvi. 1 1. ; "liJB, ii. 22., compared with Jeremiah vi. 25., xx. 3. 10. ; 
h?)t, i. 11., compared with Jeremiah xv. 19. Chaldaising forms are 
such as PCW, i. 4. ; t*m for n&\, iv. 1. ; tfTBO, iii. 12. ; Tyn, ii. 1. ; JX>,i. 
14. A few peculiar words are, 1i2£>, i. 14. ; &0B>, iii. 8. ; 65*33, iii. 16. ; 
13V, iv. 8.; nhm and aferfflJO, iii. 65; DbK> used of men, i. 13. 16., 

1 Einleitung, vol. v. p. 2321. 

2 Die poetischen Biichcr des alten Bundes, part 1. p. 144. 

3 See Haveruick's Einleit. vol. iii. p. 515. 



892 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

iii. 11., iv. 5. ; W prefixed, ii. 15., iv. 9. Words of peculiar forms are 
na^p, i. 1. ; DW&, ii. 14. ; HJ-1S, ii. 18., iii. 49. 1 

The style of these poems is admirably adapted to the leading 
topic, and has been excessively praised by Lowth. " There is not 
extant any poem which displays such a happy and splendid selection 
of imagery in so concentrated a state. What can be more elegant 
and poetical than the description of that once flourishing city lately 
chief among the nations, sitting in the character of a female, solitary, 
afflicted, in a state of widowhood, deserted by her friends, betrayed 
by her clearest connections, imploring relief, and seeking consolation 
in vain ! What a beautiful personification is that of ( the ways of 
Sion mourning because none are come to her solemn feasts ! ' How 
tender and pathetic are the following complaints : — 

' Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by? 
Behold, and see, if there be any sorrow like to my sorrow, which is brought 

upon me, 
With which Jehovah hath afflicted me in the day of his fierce anger ! 
For these things do I weep ; mine eye runneth down with water ; 
For far from me are they that should comfort me, that should restore my 

strength ; 
My children have perished because the enemy prevailed.' 

(i. 14. 16.,Noyes's Translation.) 

But to detail its beauties would be to transcribe the entire poem," 2 
Although there is much pathos and elegance in various parts of these 
elegies, we believe that the encomiums heaped upon them by Lowth 
are extravagant. The very artificiality of them is an evidence that 
they are not of the highest order. " I consider," says De Wette, 
very justly, " I consider the alphabetic arrangement as a contrivance 
of the rhythmical art, an offspring of the later vitiated taste. When 
the spirit of poetry is flown, men cling to the lifeless body, the rhyth- 
mical form, and seek to supply its absence by this. In truth, nearly 
all the alphabetical compositions are remarkable for the want of con- 
nection, for common thoughts, coldness, and languor of feeling, and 
a low and occasionally mechanical phraseology. . . . The Lamenta- 
tions are, indeed, possessed of considerable merit in their way, but 
still betray an unpoetic period and degenerated taste." 3 

The Lamentations are placed after the book of Jeremiah, in the 
Septuagint and Vulgate, in consequence of the tradition which assigns 
their authorship to the prophet. In several printed editions of the 
Hebrew Bible, particularly those published by Christians, they 
occupy the same position. Jerome says that Jeremiah and the La- 
mentations were counted but one book, in consequence of the desire 
to reduce the books to twenty-two — the number of the letters in the 
alphabet. But, according to the Talmudical order which is followed 
in editions of the Hebrew Bible published by Jews, the Lamentations 
are among the five Megilloth, in the third division or Hagiographa. 
Whether the original place was after Jeremiah, or among the Hagio- 

1 Comp. Pareau's Threni Jerem. phil. et crit. illustrati, Observatt. generalior. § 6 — 8. 

2 Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, Lect. xxii. 

3 Commentar ueber die Psalmen, Einleit. p. 58. 



On the Book of the Prophet EzeUel. 893 

grapha, as now, is doubtful, notwithstanding the dogmatical asser- 
tion of Henderson, " there can be little doubt that, originally, they 
immediately followed, or formed the concluding part of the book of 
that prophet. 1 We incline to take the former view. The Jews 
believe that the book was not written by the gift of prophecy, but by 
the Spirit of God ; which is given as a reason for not putting it 
among the prophets. But the distinction is a gratuitous one. Pro- 
bably the liturgical character of these elegies led to their present 
place among the Ctubim or Hagiographa. 



CHAP. XXL 

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET EZEKIEL. 

Ezekiel (i. e. God strengthens) was the son of Buzi, of the sacer- 
dotal race. In the eleventh year before the destruction of Jerusalem 
he was carried into captivity into Mesopotamia, along with king 
Jehoiachin and the principal men of the people. There the captives 
formed a colony near the Chaboras, a tributary of the Euphrates 
(i. 1. 3., iii. 15.). He had a house at Tel-abib, and was married. 
In the fifth year of his exile he opened his prophetic mission, i.e. 
594 B.C. ; and he continued his teaching till the sixteenth year after 
the destruction of Jerusalem. Plence, he prophesied nearly twenty- 
two years, (xxix. 17.) It has been inferred from the words of the 
first verse, " Now it came to pass, in the thirtieth year, in the fourth 
month," &c, that he commenced his ministry in the thirtieth year of 
his age ; but the conclusion does not flow from the premises. Accord- 
ing to Michaelis and Rosennriiller, the reckoning there is from the era 
of Nabopolassar the father of Nebuchadnezzar. Others, however, take 
the era to be that of the finding the book of the law, in the eighteenth 
year of Josiah. (2 Kings xxii.) The latter view, though held by 
Jerome, Ideler, Havernick, and others, is less probable, as Hitzig 2 
has shown ; who, after Joseph Kimchi, dates the thirtieth year from 
a jubilee-year. Whichever era be adopted, the difference of time is 
insignificant. We prefer the first. As Ezekiel does not call himself 
a youth when he began to prophesy, though Jeremiah so speaks of 
himself, there is no foundation for the opinion that he was a youth 
when carried captive. Yet Josephus ventures to make the assertion; 
and Havernick 3 adventurously objects to it the matured character of 
a priest which appears in his writings, as well as his intimate ac- 
quaintance with the temple-service. Even were this the case, and 

1 The book of the Prophet Jeremiah, &c., &c , p. 275. 

2 Der Prophet Ezeehiel, erklart, pp. 2, 3. 

3 Commentar ueber Ezeehiel, p. 8. 



894 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

lie had performed the duties of a priest in the temple, no certain 
conclusion could be drawn as to his age, notwithstanding the condi- 
tion in Numbers iv. 3. It does not follow, however, from i. 3., that 
Ezekiel actually discharged the priestly functions. The dignity 
came to him by virtue of his descent from Levi. Among his com- 
panions in misfortune, the Jewish exiles, he was highly respected ; 
for the elders of the people often came to him to ask his advice, 
(viii. 1., xiv. 1., xx. 1., xxxiii. 30. &c.) Whether he prophesied or 
lived beyond the time indicated in his work, is uncertain. There 
are no authentic accounts relating to his death ; for those collected 
in the Pseudo-Epiphanius, in his lives of the prophets, are fabulous. 
It is there related that he was put to death by the chief of the 
people, in the place of his exile, because of his having reproved him 
for idolatry ; and that he was buried in the field of Maur, in the tomb 
of Shem and Arphaxad. In later times, his sepulchre was pointed out 
between the Chaboras and Euphrates. Jerome supposes that, as 
Ezekiel was in part contemporary with Jeremiah, who prophesied in 
Judea, while Ezekiel delivered his predictions in Mesopotamia, their 
prophecies were interchanged for the consolation and encouragement 
of the captive Jews. This, however, is a most improbable hypo- 
thesis. 

The prophecies of Ezekiel are put together in one well-arranged 
book. They may be most conveniently divided into three parts : — 

I. Visions and prophecies before the destruction of Jerusalem, 
(i. — xxiv.) 

II. Prophecies against foreign nations, (xxv. — xxxii.) 

III. Prophecies after the destruction of Jerusalem, (xxxiii. — 
xlviii.) 

These general divisions contain the following parts : — 

I. 1. Ezekiel's call to the prophetic office ; his commission, in- 
structions, and encouragements for performing the duties, (i. — iii. 21.) 
2. A circumstantial announcement of the destruction coming upon 
Judah and Jerusalem, on account of the wickedness and idolatry of 
the people, (iii. 22 — vii.) 3. A cycle of visions and prophetic dis- 
courses relating to the rejection of the covenant-people, with a copious 
description of the guilt of the people, their rulers, priests, and false 
prophets, (viii. — xix.) 4. Several discourses, in which the idolatry 
of the people is reproved, and the fearful judgment coming upon 
Jerusalem proclaimed, (xx. — xxiii.) 5. The destruction of Jerusa- 
lem and its inhabitants is figuratively delineated, (xxiv.) 

II. 1. Prophecies against the Ammonites, (xxv. 1 — 7.) 2. Against 
the Moabites. (xxv. 8 — 11.) 3. Against the Edomites. (xxv. 12 — 14.) 
4. Against the Philistines, (xxv. 15 — 17.) 5. A prophecy against 
Tyre and Sidon. (xxvi. — xxviii.) 6. A prophecy against Egypt, 
(xxix. — xxxii.) 

III. This part contains predictions respecting the restoration of 
the theocracy: 1. Of the future salvation of Israel in its conditions 
and basis, (xxxiii. — xxxvi.) 2. In its development, from the reani- 
mation of the people to their victory over all enemies of the divine 



On the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. 895 

kingdom, (xxxvii. — xxxix.) 3. The renewal and glorification of the 
theocracy in the Messianic period, (xl. — xlviii.) 

In the first division, chronological order is observed. Thus, 
chapters i. — vii. belong to the fifth year of the captivity, as is ex- 
pressly stated in i. 1. Chapters viii. — xix. belong to the sixth year, 
as is affirmed in viii. 1. Chapters xx. — xxiii. belong to the seventh 
year, as stated in xx. 1. Chapter xxiv. belongs to the ninth 
year. (xxiv. 1.) The prophecy xxvi. — xxviii. was delivered in the 
eleventh year of the exile (xxvi. 1.) ; that in xxix. 1 — 16. in the tenth 
year (xxix. 1.) ; that in xxix. 17 — xxx. 19. in the twenty-seventh 
year (xxix. 17.) ; that in xxx. 20 — xxxi. in the eleventh year (xxx. 
20., xxxi. 1.); that in xxxii. 1 — 16. in the twelfth year (xxxii. 1.); 
that in xxxii. 17 — 32. in the twelfth year (xxxii. 17.). Thus pre- 
dictions against foreign nations present chronological and material 
order united ; while the order of time is exactly followed in such as 
relate to Israel. The former were delivered either immediately 
before, during, or soon after, the destruction of Jerusalem. 

The prophecies in the third part were delivered in the twenty- 
fifth year of the exile, and the fourteenth of the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, (xl. 1.) 

As the book consists of forty-eight chapters, it divides itself very 
naturally into two equal halves ; the first half containing oracles 
before the fall of Jerusalem ; the last half, oracles after that catas- 
trophe. The event in question forms the centre and cnlminating- 
point of the book, on which account the description in xxv. 2. sup- 
poses it past. Each of the twenty-four chapters, again, resolves 
itself into three sections, viz. i. — vii., viii. — xix., xx. — xxiv. ; the 
middle one containing as many chapters as the other two together ; 
and xxv. — xxxii., xxxiii. — xxxix., xl. — xlviii. 

It is observable, that the foreign nations which are threatened with 
destruction are limited to seven. This is not without design, else 
Sidon would scarcely have been introduced besides Tyre. Judgment 
is first predicted against the neighbouring nations, Amnion, Moab, 
Edom, and the Philistines, which appear in open rebellion against 
the theocracy : then follow the prophecies against Tyre and Sidon. 
These enemies represent respectively the power of heathenism fallen 
away from God, in active opposition to the theocracy, and with 
carnal security sunk in sin, forgetful of God. The picture is 
completed by Egypt, the old enemy of the covenant-people, repre- 
senting heathenism in both aspects at once, — active rebellion and 
haughty security in relation to the theocracy. In consequence of 
this material order, the chronological one in these prophecies against 
foreign nations is not followed ; for the three in xxix. 1 — 16., xxx. 
20 — 26., xxxi., are all of more recent date than xxiv. 

"With respect to the authenticity of Ezekiel's prophecies, doubts 
have not been numerous or continued. Indeed the oracles before 
us bear the stamp of the prophet's individuality in ideas and lan- 
guage so strongly, that there is little room for scepticism. Oecler 
and Vogel wrote against the authenticity of the last nine chapters. 
Corrodi attacked chapters xxxviii. — xlviii. The latter was fully 



896 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

answered by Beckhaus, Eichhorn, and Jahn, who also made a few 
general remarks upon the views of Oeder and Yogel. An anony- 
mous writer in the " Monthly Magazine" for 1798 also attacked 
chapters xxv. — xxxii. xxxv. xxxvi. xxxviii. xxxix. As his remarks 
were published in Gabler's "Theological Journal" for 1799, Jahn 
replied to them with needless particularity. There is no use at the 
present day of bringing forth these old objections from their resting 
place of obscurity. Let them be consigned to oblivion. It may 
be well, however, as Oeder made considerable use of Josephus, to 
allude to the passage of the Jewish historian, in which he appears to 
say that Ezekiel wrote two books of prophecies. The words, literally 
translated, are these : — " Not only did he (Jeremiah) deliver before- 
hand such predictions to the people, but also the prophet Ezekiel, 
who first wrote and left behind in writing two books concerning 
these events." l There are three views that may be taken of this 
passage. One is, that the two books Josephus speaks of are combined 
in the one work now extant, the latter book consisting of chapters 
xl. — xlviii. ; the second, that a book has been lost which the prophet 
wrote ; and the third, that the last nine chapters are the second book, 
assigned to Ezekiel, but incorrectly so ; put with the authentic work 
in the same manner as Baruch and the so-called epistle of Jeremiah 
were frequently combined with Jeremiah's prophecies. The first is 
the prevailing opinion, viz. that the present book was originally two, 
which were subsequently united. Against this it has been urged 
that there is not a shadow of evidence that the present work was 
ever divided into two ; and besides, Josephus himself reckons twenty- 
two books in the Old Testament canon, of which only one belongs 
to Ezekiel. Eichhorn, by an ingenious conjecture, supposes that 
Josephus is speaking of Jeremiah, not Ezekiel : and that 6s Trpwros 
is equivalent to 6 8s irpwros. But this is very improbable. 2 

In favour of the second view various passages in the Fathers, from 
Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Lactantius, pur- 
porting to have been written by Ezekiel, are adduced, which do not 
appear in the present book. These passages are given by Fabricius 3 , 
and commented on by Oeder. 4 Carpzov 5 , however, after Le Moyne, 
thinks that they were derived from Jewish tradition embodied in 
Pirke Aboth. 

The third view is adopted by Oeder ; but against this, internal 
evidence is overwhelming. If the preceding chapters were written 
by Ezekiel, the last nine were also composed by him. 

On the whole, we suppose that the Jewish historian has either 
committed an error in speaking of Ezekiel as the author of two 
books, or meant two parts of the book now extant. 

More recently Zunz 6 has put forth the opinion that Ezekiel and 
his vision stand nearer to the Persian epoch and culture than is 
commonly believed. The last nine chapters may belong, as he sup- 

1 Antiqq. x. 5. 1. 2 Einleit. vol. iv. p. 182. 

3 Codex Pseudepigraphus Vet. Test. pp. 1118, 1119. 

4 Freie Untersuchungen ueber eiuige Bucher des alten Testaments, p. 354. et seqq. 

5 Introductio ad Libb. bib. V. T. part iii. p. 203. 

8 Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage, u. s. w. p. 157. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel 897 

poses, to the age of Cyrus ; and the Talmud even says that the book 
of Ezekiel was written by the great synagogue. The considerations 
adduced on behalf of this hypothesis evince uncritical haste and 
doctrinal prepossession. They are founded on some peculiarities of 
manner, particularly the speciality of various prophecies ; and on 
language and style. But it is needless to examine his separate alle- 
gations, since they have been refuted by Havernick. 1 

The manner in which the present book of Ezekiel was made up 
cannot be ascertained more definitely than that the prophet himself 
appears to have left in writing all the oracles in their present 
form. He speaks of himself throughout in the first person with 
but two exceptions, which are easily explained. It has been con- 
jectured by Gramberg 2 and Hitzig 3 that they were not orally deli- 
vered, either wholly or in part, but were circulated only in writing ; 
a conjecture for which there is no evidence. As little, probability 
is there for the opinion of the latter critic, that the first twenty- 
four chapters were not composed till after the destruction of Je- 
rusalem; the very definite predictions in xii. 13., xxiv. 1. &c. &c, 
being merely vaticinia ex eventu. All this arises from the denial of 
proper prediction, and is utterly uncritical. A well arranged plan 
appears to pervade the whole book. It is put together in a connected 
and definite method, coinciding with the prophetic ministry of 
Ezekiel. Hence we are justified in assigning the redaction of it 
to himself. If indeed traces of later elaboration could be pointed 
out, or if transpositions could be shown here and there, we should 
refer the final redaction to some other hand ; but the attempts to do 
either have proved nugatory. When Jahn thinks that the oracles 
against foreign nations have been transposed, he mistakes the prin- 
ciple on which they are arranged 4 ; and it is pure hypothesis to say, 
with Bertholdt and Eichhorn 5 , that the collection was gradually 
formed out of single rolls or various smaller collections. Nor is 
Ewald's arbitrary attempt to account for the origin of the work, by 
supposing that it arose from various written prophecies gradually 
combined after the time of the prophet himself, any better, 6 The 
most plausible consideration he urges is, that two little pieces must 
have got into a wrong place, from some unknown cause ; viz. xlvi. 1 6 
— 18. w T hich belonged to xlv. 8. ; and xlvi. 19—24. belonging to xlii. 
14. But even Hitzig admits that the second is now in its right 
place ; and, although he assents to the opinion of Ewald as to the 
first, the piece is equally unobjectionable. Modern subjectivity 
should not be transferred to the times and persons of the Old Tes- 
tament. On the whole, we can find no valid reason for refusing to 
allow that the book, as now arranged, proceeded from Ezekiel him- 
self, not having been materially disturbed, or arbitrarily transposed 
in any place by a later compiler. 

The Masoretic text of this book is not pure. Indeed it is more' 

1 Einleit. ii. 2. p. 271. etseqq. 2 Geschichte der Religionsideen, ii. p. 403. 

3 Der Prophet Ezechiel, Vorbemeikungen, p. 10. * Einleit. ii. p. 593, 

5 See their Einleitungen on Ezekiel. 

6 Die Propheten, u. s. w. vol. ii. p. 207. et seqq, 

VOL. II. 3 M 



898 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

corrupt than that of any other, with the exception of Jeremiah. 
The contents of the work are peculiar, and must have been often un- 
intelligible to an ordinary reader. The text of the Septuagint does 
not differ so widely as in the case of Jeremiah from the Hebrew ; 
but it presents considerable deviations notwithstanding ; and may be 
used with caution in restoring the original. The Peshito or old 
Syriac may also be applied in some cases ; but by no means so fre- 
quently or advantageously. 1 

In the character of Ezekiel we see a marked decision and energy. 
His natural disposition appears to have been vigorous and firm. 
Hence he was admirably qualified to oppose the prevailing corrupt- 
ness of the age. With force, fire, and vehemence does he perform 
the functions of the prophetic office, subordinating all his personal 
affairs to the work into which he had thrown his soul. The man is 
absorbed in the prophet. Combined with such power and energy 
we see the genuine priestly inclination. He was sprung from a race 
of priests ; and had been educated amid Levitical influences. Many 
evidences of this bias of mind appear in his writings, as in viii.- — xi., 
xl. — xlviii., iv. 14., xx. 12. &c, xxii. 8. 26., xxiv. 16. Accordingly 
he attaches great value to sacred usages. But this is scarcely a suffi- 
cient warrant for saying, with some critics, that his spirituality was 
contracted ; or that he had a one-sided conception of antiquity ob- 
tained from books or traditions. If he had an idea of the spiritual 
import of the law and the symbolic nature of ceremonial observances, 
his mind was not injuriously affected by priestly education. That 
his spirit was richly endowed, and cultivated to a considerable ex- 
tent, is apparent from his accurate knowledge of the law, of the 
national history, of foreign nations and their affairs, and of archi- 
tecture. Indeed his life was more literary than practical ; though he 
combined both excellences, the literary and the practical, in a degree 
to which his contemporary Jeremiah could lay no claim. The ex- 
traordinary richness of fancy, and the wonderful fire which he dis- 
plays in his discourses, show more of the orator than the poet. 
There can be no doubt that, both by natural endowment and divine 
illumination, he was admirably fitted to be a powerful instrument 
in the hands of God of awakening the slumbering energy of the 
people in exile, and withstanding the corrupt influences to which 
they were so liable in a foreign land, especially by reason of their 
hard-hearted apostasy from Jehovah. The method of his prophecies 
is manifold and variable. Sometimes the discourse is didactic, with 
which he interweaves proverbial expressions. Examples occur in 
chapters xii. — xix. Here his sentences are drawn out with rheto- 
rical fulness and breadth, with scarcely anything of the poet in them. 
But where lyric songs are inserted, as in xix. xxvii. xxxii., there is 
poetical elevation, because the subjective feelings of the writer find 
freer play. He is most characterised, however, by symbolical and 
allegorical representations, unfolding a rich series of majestic visions, 
of bold images in which reality is often disregarded, image and fact 

\ See Ewald, ii. p. 218. 



On the Bool of the Prophet Ezekiel. 899 

being mixed up together; of colossal symbols showing the strong 
impressions made on the mind of the prophet in a foreign land. 
Besides, there are a great number of symbolical actions, embodying 
vivid conceptions on the part of the prophet. (Compare iv., v. 1. &c, 
xii. 3. &c, xxiv. 3. &c, 15. &c, xxxvii. 16. &c.) 

It has been remarked that artistic skill is manifested by the pro- 
phet in a preponderating degree; and therefore most of his prophecies 
should be looked upon as purely literary productions. l This remark 
of De Wette is scarcely coi'rect. Skill does appear in his discourses ; 
but not to the extent, or of the kind, specified. On the other hand, 
Havernick affirms that his skill is the historical skill of the narrator 
of internal facts — a purely reproductive and not a productive faculty 
— manifested in the full and true giving back of his inward con- 
ceptions in their immediateness and originality. 2 This also is hardly 
correct. While the prophet everywhere appears, the writer appears 
also ; and the skill he shows belongs to the latter, not the former. 
If Ezekiel were an original prophet throughout, if he showed no 
dependence on the older masters, or imitation of them, Havernick's 
representation might be allowed ; but he was evidently well versed 
in books, in the literature of his nation, in the relations and mea- 
surements of architecture ; and therefore his skill as a writer is 
exhibited in the matter and manner of his prophecies : not that the 
prophet is thereby overpowered ; but that prophet and artistic writer 
are united in a greater degree than is shown by any of his contem- 
poraries. 

The mode of representation, in which symbols and allegories 
occupy a prominent place, gives a dark, mysterious character to the 
prophecies of Ezekiel. They are obscure and enigmatical. A 
cloudy mystery overhangs them which it is almost impossible to 
penetrate. It is no wonder that ancient writers often complain of 
such darkness. Jerome calls the book " a labyrinth of the myste- 
ries of God." 3 It was because of this obscurity that the Jews 
forbade any one to read it till he had attained the age of thirty. 

The style of Ezekiel has been judged of differently by different 
critics. Its variableness has led to this in part ; for it is uneven and 
many-sided. Bishop Lowth says : " Ezekiel is much inferior to 
Jeremiah in elegance ; in sublimity he is not even excelled by Isaiah ; 
but his sublimity is of a totally different kind. He is deep, vehe- 
ment, tragical. The only sensation he affects to excite is the ter- 
rible. His sentiments are elevated, fervid, full of fire, indignant ; 
his imagery is crowded, magnificent, terrific, sometimes almost to 
disgust ; his language is pompous, solemn, austere, rough, and at 
times unpolished ; he employs frequent repetitions, not for the sake 
of grace or elegance, but from the vehemence of passion and indig- 
nation. TV natever subject he treats of, that he sedulously pursues ; 
from that he rarely departs, but cleaves, as it were, to it ; whence 
the connection is in general evident and well preserved. In many 

1 De Wette's Einleitung, p. 342. 2 Comnientar, p. ssi. 

3 Fraefat. in xiv. commentarior. in Ezechielem libr. 
3 m 2 



900 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

respects he is perhaps excelled by the other prophets ; but in that 
species of composition to which he seems by nature adapted, the 
forcible, the impetuous, the great and solemn, not one of the sacred 
writers is superior to him. His diction is sufficiently perspicuous : 
all his obscurity consists in the nature of the subject. Visions (as 
for instance, among others, those of Hosea, Amos, and Jeremiah) 
are necessarily dark and confused. The greater part of Ezekiel, 
towards the middle of the book especially, is poetical, whether we 
regard the matter or the diction. His periods, however, are fre- 
quently so rude and incompact, that I am often at a loss how to pro- 
nounce concerning his performance in this respect." l 

Although, as Michaelis remarks 2 , the matter be entirely dependent 
on taste, yet, like him, we cannot here agree with Lowth. As to 
jNewcome's vindication of the style against Michaelis, it is wholly un- 
successful and not worth quoting. The prophet should not be com- 
pared with Isaiah in sublimity. Indeed, very few instances of the 
sublime appear in him. Nor is there much of the true spirit of 
poetry, or of great and original conceptions. Yet the style is beneath 
the conception. The language does not keep pace with the progress 
of ideas. It wants variety, roundness, and beauty. The bolder and 
more poetical the ideas, the more prosaic is the way in which they are 
expressed. The prophet amplifies and decorates the subject with 
great art and luxuriance, especially in symbolic and allegorical trans- 
actions. Ordinarily the language sinks down very near to the region 
of prose, becoming verbose and diffuse. Even where it is of an ele- 
vated nature, it is overladen with words and artificial. The diction 
is still more degenerate than that of Jeremiah. It is mixed with 
Aramaean words, or corrupted with Aramaean forms. Thus we find 
ttrn%, xxvii. 31.; KiJ3J, xxxi. 5.; ♦fc'j!?*, xvi. 20.; ♦fl'fcj, xvi. 22.; 
an^riN, xli. 15. 3 

He has a number of constantly recurring expressions, especially, 
"they shall know that I am Jehovah," v. 13., vi. 10., xiv. 8. 23., xii. 
15. &c. ; or "they shall know that there hath been a prophet among 
them," ii. 5., xxxiii. 33. ; " the hand of the Lord was there upon 
me," i. 3., iii. 22., xxxvii. 1., xl. 1. ; " set thy face against," iv. 3. 7., 
vi. 2., xiii. 17., xxi. 2., xxv. 2., xxviii. 20. &c. ; "as I live, saith 
the Lord God," v. 11., xiv. 16. 18. 20., xvi. 48., xvii. 16., xviii. 3., 
xx. 31. 33., xxxiii. 11., xxxv. 11.; the title Son of Man applied to 
the prophet himself, ii. 1. 3. 6. 8., iii. 1. 3. 4. &c. ; the designation of 
the people as "a rebellious house," ii. 5, 6. 7, 8., iii. 9. 26, 27., xii. 
2, 3. 9., xvii. 12., xxiv. 3. ; " thus says Jehovah;' T\\7\\ tflg 1»K H3 or 
n\n\ ♦jhB DX?, ii. 4., iii. 11. 27., v. 5. 7, 8. 11., vi. 3. 11., vii. 2. 5. &c, 
xi. 8. 21., xii. 25., &c. occurring more than eighty times. 

His language also shows a dependence on other writings, especially 
on the Pentateuch, and that in a greater degree than Jeremiah's. In 
this respect it coincides with the latest of the Hagiographa. 4 In like 
manner Jeremiah's writings have been used, as may be seen from 

1 Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, Lect. xxi. 2 Notes on Lowth. 

s See Zunz, p. 159. note e. 4 Comp. Zunz, pp. 160, 161. note f. 



On the Book of the Prophet EzeMel. 901 

v. 2. &c, xiv. 13. &c, xii. 16., xiii. 10. 16., xi. 19., xviii. 31., xxxvi. 
25. &c, xii. 14., xvii. 20. 1 

According to Havernick 2 and Keil 3 , the originality of Ezekiel is 
shown by a great number of expressions which do not occur else- 
where, and which were probably in part first formed by himself. But 
such originality is not a very high attribute apart from the quality of 
the terms themselves. The prophet in several cases was obliged to 
make such words, in consequence of the peculiar subjects he treats of. 

There are various Messianic prophecies in Ezekiel, as that in 
chapter xxxiv. 11 — 31., where the condition of the church is described 
under Messiah the King, called David. Indeed the last three pro- 
phecies are Messianic, viz. that relating to the mountains and house 
of Israel (xxxvi. xxxvii.) ; that respecting Gog and Magog (xxxviii. 
xxxix.) ; and the final description of the new sanctuary and city of 
Jehovah (xl. — xlviii.). 

In the first of these three remarkable predictions, Ezekiel sees the 
mountains of the holy land utterly desolate and a reproach to the 
heathen, (xxxvi. 3 — 5.) The members of the house of Israel appear to 
him like dry dead bones in the midst of a valley, (xxxvii. 2. 11.) But 
when the Spirit of God breathes upon them, they rise up an exceed- 
ing great army. This resurrection will be accomplished when the 
fulness of the Gentiles shall have been brought in, the converted 
Jews being incorporated with the Gentile church into one spiritual 
community. (Bom. xi. 25, 26.) 

As to the prophecy of Gog and Magog (xxxviii. xxxix.), it is ob- 
vious that the first appellation was formed by the prophet himself to 
correspond with the second, meaning the king or prince of Magog. 
The latter is a name for the Scythian tribes, those rude uncivilised 
peoples that have been out of the circle of civilisation and history, 
and are yet to occupy a prominent place in the affairs of the world 
and the church. Gog and Magog are representative of the heathen 
power, — of all peoples and influences which are without, and therefore 
opposed to the kingdom of God. They symbolise the united forces of 
the world — the kingdom of heathen darkness and death in contrast 
with the divine theocracy — being equivalent to what is elsewhere 
termed Babylon. The antichristian elements of this world are in 
perpetual hostility to the true church. Between them and the king- 
dom of God there will be a last deadly struggle. Babylon and Jeru- 
salem will appear in open conflict : Gog and Magog on the one side, 
Messiah on the other. This conflict is the culminating point and 
consummation of all that is said in Scripture of the enmity of the 
heathen to Jehovah's kingdom, and the judgment ujwn that enmity. 
In it, as the closing and severest struggle, all finds its last fulfilment. 
We believe it to be still future. 4 

The third and last Messianic prophecy refers to the new temple and 
the new city. (xl. — xlviii.) This has respect to a time yet to come, 
when the Jews as a people shall be converted, and incorporated with 

1 See Ewald, vol. ii. pp. 208, 209. 2 Einleit. ii. 2. p. 270. 

3 Einleit. p. 307. 4 See Baiimgarten in Herzog's Enclyklopsedie, article Ezechiel. 

3 ?i 3 



902 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

the Christian church. The description is more symbolical than literal. 
The temple, priesthood, sacrificial worship, Sabbath, and new-moon 
festivals, are for the most part Jewish costume enclosing and convey- 
ing Christian ideas. Referring, as they mainly do, to the conversion 
of the Jews to Messiah, they are necessarily connected with the en- 
largement of the Christian church, by the fulness of the Gentiles 
flowing into it. Baumgarten says truly, that we must learn to recog- 
nise in these- high and glorious descriptions not merely the final form 
of Israel, but also the last normal state of the converted Gentile 
church. We do not, however, think with him, that the latter will be 
received into the former, and find in the law of Israel its national dis- 
position according to the law of God. Rather will the converted 
Jewish people be received into the enlarging Gentile church, and be- 
come with it one spiritual body. "YVe do not suppose that Israel will 
be restored as a nation to their own land, and converted to the belief 
of the Messiah, Jesus the crucified one ; else we should hold with 
some, among whom Baumgarten seems to place himself, that the tem- 
ple should be rebuilt and its worship restored ; on the contrary, the 
Jews will hereafter be absorbed into the communion of the Gentiles, 
and both become one in Christ. It is to this future enlargement and 
glorification of the Messianic church that the prophecy of Ezekiel 
alludes. 

Here a question arises how far the three prophecies in the. 
latter part of Ezekiel's book are Messianic. Are they wholly so ? 
Do they relate solely to the Christian dispensation? If so, most 
critics will believe that they remain to be fulfilled. Or should they 
be connected with events in the Jewish dispensation as well as with 
the fate of Christianity ? Is their application twofold or even more ? 
Do they foreshadow things connected with both dispensations, re- 
lated as type and antitype — prelibation and accomplishment — in- 
cipient and final fulfilment? The choice lies between these two 
views ; for none who has a right perception of the nature of prophecy 
will think of confining such predictions to events under the Jewish 
economy. Even Henderson 1 , who tries to restrict the three to the 
Israelites restored to their own land, their enemies the Idumeans, and 
Antiochus Epiphanes, is obliged here and there to introduce the Mes- 
sianic time ; as if the spirit and tenor of the language refused to be 
crushed into the narrow crucible of his arid exegesis. 

"YVe are inclined to think that premonitory fulfilments, so to speak, 
should not be neglected in the interpretation of these remarkable pre- 
dictions. In the first, the Idumeans should not be stripped of their 
literal individuality, and converted into a mere symbol of the enemies 
of God's kingdom under the New Testament dispensation. The pro- 
phecy refers to these inveterate foes of ancient Israel ; but it swells 
out beyond them to the enemies of the church at a future period. It 
had an incipient fulfilment in Edom and the restored captive people. 
At the same time its, full accomplishment is future. All antichristian 
powers in their opposition to the Messianic theocracy are intended. 

1 See the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, translated from the original Hebrew, with a 
Commentary, &c., &c. p. 168. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Ezekiel. 903 

They are the principal and highest subject of the prophecy. In 
the second, not merely are Antiochus Epiphanes and his armies 
represented as invading Palestine and spreading desolation through 
the country, but a terrible and final coniiict between the antichris- 
tian power of the world and the spiritual kingdom of Christ is also and 
chiefly depicted. The one conflict was but a feeble type and instal- 
ment of the other. The prophecy, with its springing and germinant 
sense, comprehends both. In the third, including the last nine chap- 
ters, the restoration of the material temple after the return of the 
Jews from captivity is not the main or only topic described. The 
things which the temple and its services foreshadowed are also re- 
ferred to, i. e. the New Testament church in her glorious time of 
enlargement and prosperity, after the Jews shall have been converted. 
By this mode of interpretation we avoid the two extremes into which 
many expositors have fallen. On the one hand, we repudiate the nar- 
row, Jewish, literal acceptation into which some Juclaising Christians 
have run ; on the other, we do not lose ourselves entirely in symbol 
and allegory, as Havernick and his follower Fairbairn. The outward 
and literal is preserved, while the internal and spiritual is equally 
maintained. All is not resolvable into the bare facts of Jewish his- 
tory; neither is all resolvable into Messianic facts and truths with a 
Judaic envelope. 

The literal interpretation of the last nine chapters appears to 
us wholly untenable from the single fact, that Henderson him- 
self, who advocates this view, can maintain it no farther than the 
termination of chapter xlvi., i. e., as far as the temple and its or- 
dinances are concerned. The description in chapter xlvii. he holds 
to be symbolical, while that in chapter xlviii. again, is literal. 1 
Such arbitrariness of interpretation can be justified by nothing 
but exegetical necessity. And none such exists in the present 
case. It is wholly incorrect to say that the vision in chapter xlvii., 
" though connected with, is to be regarded as distinct from, that 
of the temple." 2 On the contrary, the nine chapters contain one 
vision, as the expositor himself unconsciously remarks at the close, 
"Here endeth this remarkable vision." 3 One insuperable objection 
to the literal sense of the part relating to the temple and its ordi- 
nances is, that the dimensions assigned to it in xlii. 16 — 20. are 
incredibly large ; for they would cover more space than was ever 
comprehended in the entire city of Jerusalem. The answer of Hen- 
derson to this is a mere evasion : " The prophet here employs an 
architectural hyperbole, with the view of conveying the idea of 
sufficient amplitude ; " that is, although the prophet meant that he 
should be understood literally, and gave the proper dimensions of the 
temple, he stated in this place far more "reeds" than the literal 
number ! Surely, he either wrote figuratively, or made an incorrect 
statement. The temple was not completed according to the plan 
proposed and described by Ezekiel. This is admitted even by Bennett, 
a Jew. " Having justly considered," says he, " all the circumstances, 
they [the returned Jews] determined to adopt the plan of Ezekiel in 

1 The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, p. 187. et seqq. 2 Ibid. p. 212. 3 Ibid. p. 219. 
3 M 4 



904 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

its principal parts only ; viz. the actual Temple and the Sanctuary, 
with its adjoining buildings, which formed the western side of the 
proposed fabric, as we find testified in Mishnah Midoth. The re- 
maining and less essential parts, such as the halls, porches, courts, 
&c, they judiciously determined to defer until a more favourable 
opportunity, when the increase of the population, and the prosperous 
state of the commonwealth, should justify the completion of the plan 
in its full extent, agreeably to the scriptural direction given to 
Ezekiel. They accordingly contented themselves for the present 
with a smaller and a simpler building, or with the remnants of the first 
temple, as we are told from the same authority." 1 With this agrees 
the statement of Havernick, that the temple and its ordinances were 
not restored according to the pattern furnished by Ezekiel. Hence, 
we are surprised at the assertion of Henderson, that " Havernick's 
statement [to this effect] is altogether a gratuitous assumption. It 
is a point on which we have no positive historical data to enable us 
to decide." If so, why does the commentator add, with singular in- 
consistency, " The discrepancies, however, that have been detected 
between the ancient temple, and that described by Ezekiel, are non- 
essential," &c. 2 There is little doubt that the dimensions given by 
the prophet are ideal to a considerable extent; for if they were 
literally carried out and actually followed, they would form a 
building immensely large and magnificent, far exceeding in size and 
proportions the temple of Solomon, or that of Zerubbabel, or even 
Herod's. 

The spiritual or figurative interpretation of the vision must be 
accepted, if not exclusively, at least chiefly. The prophet does not 
speak so much of the restoration of the material temple then in ruins, 
as of that which it foreshadowed. The vision is mainly Messianic. 
It points to the new dispensation, and has therefore an allegorical 
or figurative meaning. The worship of God was to be restored. The 
temple, priesthood, and sacrifices were to reappear, not merely in the 
old material form, but in a higher and nobler aspect. A spiritual 
kingdom, a nation of priests offering spiritual sacrifices, were to arise 
as the consummation of former things. By the advent of Christ the 
theocracy was to be reanimated with new life, and assume more 
glorious proportions than before. The New Testament church, with 
her pure ordinances, was to represent the fulfilment of hopes long 
cherished by the pious Jews ; when God should build up the walls 
of Zion and reign in the midst of his people. According to this 
view, we are under no necessity of violently separating the vision into 
two parts, and understanding them differently. All refers ultimately 
to the gospel dispensation with its rich abundance of blessings. 

Those who desire to see a very minute and lengthened exposition of 
the temple and its buildings, as described in Ezekiel (chapters xl. — xlii., 
and xlvi. 19 — 24.), should consult Bottcher's Proben, pp. 218 — 365., 
Leipzig, 1833, 8vo., to which are prefixed two plates showing the out- 
lines and proportions of the prophet's ideal architecture. To this very 

1 The Temple of Ezekiel, &c. &c., p. 18. 

2 The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel, &c., p. 188. 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 905 

learned work should be added that of Mr. Solomon Bennett, entitled 
f. The Temple of Ezekiel ; " namely, an elucidation of the 40th, 41st, 
42nd, &c., Chapters of Ezekiel, consistently with the Hebrew original. 
London, 1824. 4 to. Here, too, are given a ground-plan and bird's- 
eye view. We may also refer to Thenius's elaborate Appendix to 
his Commentary on Kings, " Das vorexilische Jerusalem unci dessen 
Tempel;" where, in addition to minute descriptions and careful 
plans of Solomon's temple, there are also remarks on that described 
by Ezekiel. But has not the erudite commentator erred in his ideas 
of the actual size and measurements of the latter ? Are all his cal- 
culations in § 12. correct, so as to justify the conclusion drawn in the 
last paragraph of that section ? 



CHAP. XXII. 

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET DANIEL. 



Daniel, the fourth of the greater prophets, was a youth of noble 
birth, who was carried captive in the reign of Jehoiakim, along with 
other young men of distinction, to Babylon. He lived there at court 
under the name of Belteshazzar, and was instructed in the wisdom 
and literature of the Chaldeans. Steadfast in adhering to the faith 
of his fathers, he was richly endowed by the Most High with the 
knowledge of wonderful visions and dreams ; so that having been able 
to interpret two remarkable dreams of Nebuchadnezzar (chapters ii. 
iv.), he was exalted to the dignity of overseer, or president, of the 
wise men of Babylon, (ii. 48.) Under succeeding Chaldean princes 
he continued in high favour, and was celebrated for his wisdom. 
(v. 11., viii. 27.) The last Babylonian king, Belshazzar, on the 
night of the capture of Babylon by Cyrus, in revelling with his 
court, used the sacred things plundered from the temple at Jerusalem 
as drinking- vessels ; when suddenly he saw a mysterious hand tracing 
illegible letters on the wall. Daniel being called in, read the writing, 
and applied it to the conquest of the kingdom. The fulfilment im- 
mediately took place. The following king, Darius the Mede, or 
Cyaxares II., made Daniel first of his three chief ministers. His 
enemies having plotted against him, he was cast into a lions' den, and 
miraculously delivered. He continued, therefore, in high favour 
under the government of Darius, and lived till the reign of Cyrus, (vi. 
29., x. 1.) In what year of the reign of the latter he died, is uncertain ; 
because the time appears to be different in i. 21. and x. 1. According 
to the former, he died in the first year of Cyrus ; the latter seems to 
indicate that he was alive till the third. 

Though Daniel lived throughout the captivity, it does not appear 
that he returned to his own country when Cyrus permitted the Jews 



906 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

to revisit their native land. On this point, indeed, Jewish and 
oriental traditions are contradictory ; for while some make him 
return, others say that he died and was buried in Babylon or 
Susa. 

He was contemporary with Ezekiel, who mentions his extraordi- 
nary piety and wisdom, (xiv. 14. 20., xxviii. 3.) Even during his 
lifetime, these qualities seem to have become proverbial. As his 
life was so remarkable, it easily led the superstitious to attribute to 
him a number of miraculous things, and so to dress it out with fables. 
Though he was carried away when still a youth, he must have been 
at least ninety years of age at his death. 

The statement in the first verse of the first chapter, viz., " in the 
third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah came Nebu- 
chadnezzar king of Babylon unto Jerusalem, and besieged it," has 
given rise to much discussion. Some, as De Wette, Hitzig, &c, 
affirm that the statement is incorrect, because, according to Jer. xxv. 
1., xlvi. 2., the fourth year of Jehoiakim is the first year of Nebu- 
chadnezzar ; and, according to xxv. 9., the Chaldeans had not yet 
come against Jerusalem in the fourth year; nor yet, according to 
xxxvi. 9., in the fifth year of Jehoiakim. History knows of no 
other deportation of the Jews, besides that under Zedekiah, than the 
one which took place under Jehoiakim in the eighth year of Nebu- 
chadnezzar. (2 Kings xxiv. 12. &c.) The Chronicles alone (2 Chron. 
xxxvi. 6. &c.) mention a deportation of Jehoiakim. Hence it is 
conjectured that the author may have used this last passage, and put 
the time, the third year, out of 2 Kings xxiv. I. 1 

However formidable this difficulty may appear, it is not perhaps 
insuperable. Hengstenberg 2 , whom Keil follows, thinks that the 
third year of Jehoiakim may be regarded as the terminus a quo of 
Nebuchadnezzar's coming. This king set out, or put his army in 
motion, in that year. In the fourth year of Jehoiakim, he overthrew 
Pharaoh Necho at Carchemish (Jer. xlvi. 2.), which was immediately 
followed by the reduction of Jerusalem. According to this interpre- 
tation, the fourth year of Jehoiakim might be the frst of Nebuchad- 
nezzar king of Babylon, since the events so important to Judah in 
the first year of the public appearance of Nebuchadnezzar then 
happened. The fast in the fifth year of Jehoiakim may have been 
instituted as a time of mourning for the taking of Jerusalem in the 
preceding year ; not to avert the invasion of the Chaldeans. It is 
uncritical to say that, because 2 Kings xxiv. 12. &c. is the only 
passage in the Hebrew Scriptures which speaks of a deportation under 
Jehoiakim in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, there was therefore 
none other ; for the argumentum e silentio is invalid. 

The twenty-fifth chapter of Jeremiah does not agree with this 
view. The prophet there says that he had declared the word of 
God to the Jewish people from the thirteenth year of Josiah even 
unto this day ; but they had not hearkened, (ver. 3.) In like manner, 
the Lord had sent unto them all his servants, the prophets ; but the 

1 See De "Wette's Einleitung, p. 379. 2 Die Authentic des Daniel, p. 55. 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 907 

people had not hearkened to them. (ver. 4.) The burden of those 
prophets' message was," Turn ye again now every one from his evil way, 
and from the evil of your doings, and dwell in the land that the Lord 
hath given unto you and to your fathers for ever and ever. And go 
not after other gods, to serve them, and to worship them, and provoke 
me not to anger with the works of your hands, and I will do you no 
hurt." (ver. 5, 6.) The prophet himself continues : " Therefore 
thus saith the Lord of Hosts ; Because ye have not heard my words, 
behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the 
Lord, and Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant, and 
will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof," 
&c. &c. (verses 8, 9. &c.) Down to the time when this prophecy 
was delivered, which was in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (xxv. 1.), 
God had done the people no hurt. Hence, we infer that in the third 
year of Jehoiakim (Daniel i. 1.) what is related at the commence- 
ment of Daniel's book had not happened. If it be said that the total 
destruction of the Jewish state is threatened in Jer. xxv. 9 — 11., 
and that the occurrences of Daniel i. 1 — 4. do not amount to this, 
we reply that the latter were at least a fearful punishment ; whereas 
the language of xxv. 1 — 7. implies no such castigation, but admonishes 
to repentance. At that time, viz. the fourth year of Jehoiakim, 
God had done them no hurt, (verse 6.) Thus the solution offered 
must be rejected. l 

Hofmann 2 , Havernick 3 , Oehler 4 , and Stuart 5 , suppose that the 
taking of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar occurred the year before the 
battle at Carchemish, In that case, Jerusalem was taken in the 
third year of Jehoiakim. The twenty-fifth chapter of Jeremiah 
cannot be reconciled with this opinion. There, the fourth year of 
Jehoiakim is mentioned so as to preclude a prior invasion of Judea 
by the Chaldeans in the preceding year. It is the commencement of 
the judgments inflicted on the disobedient people by the instrumen- 
tality of the Chaldeans. Had the metropolis been conquered a year 
before by the king of Babylon, and Jehoiakim been made tributary, 
an emphatic prophecy of this kind from the mouth of Jeremiah, spe- 
cifying the fourth year of Jehoiakim, is inexplicable. It might also 
be shown that this view is contrary to the extracts from Berosus 
given by Josephus. 6 

No explanation which has yet been proposed, suffices to remove 
the difficulty before us. There seems to be a chronological mistake. 
But it need not be assumed that it was made by Daniel himself. It 
is the work of a later hand, as we shall see hereafter. 

On the ground of this alleged mistake, as also of Ezekiel's men- 
tioning Daniel as a pattern of righteousness and wisdom when he 
was still young, the historical existence of the prophet has been 

1 See Herbst's Einleitung, ii. 2. p. 106. et seqq. 

2 Die Siebzig Jahre des Jeremia, u. s. w. p. 9. et seqq. 

3 Neue kritiscke Untersuchungen ueber das Bucb Daniel, p. 62. et seqq. 

4 In Tholuck's Litterariscber Anzeiger for 1842, p. 395. et seqq. 

5 Commentary on the book of Daniel, excursus i. p. 19. et seqq. 

6 Antiqq. x. 11. 1. and contra Apion, i. 19. 



908 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

doubted. The writer of the book is thought to have falsely put 
an old mythic or poetical personage into the circumstances which 
are recorded. Von Lengerke and Hitzig think that he was a cele- 
brated hero who lived in a mythic age ; while Ewald puts him in 
the Assyrian captivity, at the court of Nineveh. But the passages 
in Ezekiel that speak of Daniel give no countenance to fictions of 
this nature. There is no improbability in supposing that, though a 
youth when carried to Babylon, Daniel may have attained to the 
fame for wisdom and righteousness which Ezekiel's language implies, 
after he had been appointed chief of the magi, i. e. thirteen or four- 
teen years since he had left his native land. The place the name 
occupies, between Noah and Job, was not regulated by chronology. 
The climax led to the arrangement in question. 

The book of Daniel is divided into two parts ; the one historical, 
the other prophetic, consisting of chapters i. — vi. and vii. — xii. re- 
spectively. The principle of arrangement is neither the chronological 
nor the material, exclusively. Both have been taken into account, and 
coalesce. 

I. In the first chapter there is a brief narrative of the circum- 
stances of Daniel's life, when he was carried captive to Babylon in 
the fourth year of Jehoiakim ; how he and his three friends were 
educated and employed at court, (i.) 

The second chapter contains an account of Nebuchadnezzar's 
dream concerning a colossal image composed of different metals, and 
a stone that broke it in pieces, with the interpretation given by 
Daniel, — explaining it of four great monarchies, and their destruc- 
tion by the Messiah's kingdom. The head of gold represented the 
Babylonian empire ; the silver breast, with silver arms, the Median 
empire ; the brazen belly and thighs represented the Persian em- 
pire ; the legs and feet, which were partly of iron and partly of clay, 
represented the Grecian empire, which was divided after the death 
of Alexander the Great. " The stone cut out of the mountain with- 
out hands, which brake in pieces the iron, the brass, the clay, the 
silver, and the gold," represented the kingdom of the Messiah, which 
was to become universal. The section or chapter concludes with 
an account of the promotion of Daniel and his friends to high 
honours, (ii.) 

The third chapter or section gives an account of the miraculous 
preservation of Shadrach, Meshech, and Abednego, who were cast 
into a fiery furnace for refusing to worship a golden image that had 
been set up by Nebuchadnezzar, (hi. 1 — 30.) 

In the fourth section, Nebuchadnezzar relates, in the form of a 
public confession addressed to the people who were subject to him, 
how Daniel, by interpreting a dream, had predicted to him the 
punishment of his pride ; and how it had come to pass. The monarch 
lost his reason, and was driven from the conversation of men for 
seven years ; after which he was restored to reason and his throne. 
Now, therefore, he extols the God of heaven, (iii. 31 — iv. 34.) 

The fifth section relates to the history of Daniel under Belshazzar, 
who, while revelling in his palace, and profaning the sacred vessels 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 909 

which Nebuchadnezzar had carried away from Jerusalem, is alarmed 
with the figure of a hand writing mysterious characters on the wall, 
which Daniel interprets of the overthrow of the king and his king- 
dom. In the same night the monarch is slain, and the Babylonian 
empire transferred to the Medes and Persians, (v.) 

The sixth chapter relates how a conspiracy was formed against 
Daniel under Darius the Mede, in consequence of which he was cast 
into a den of lions ; but that being miraculously preserved, Darius 
published a decree that all men should glorify the God of Daniel, (vi.) 

II. With the second part begins a series of visions. 

The vision of the four beasts, relative to the four monarchies of the 
world, opens the series. The first beast, a lion with wings, repre- 
sented Nebuchadnezzar, the head of the Babylonian empire; the 
second beast, a bear with three ribs in the mouth, Darius the Mede, 
whose empire, the Median, was divided into three satrapies. It had 
no complete independent existence of itself. All its importance lay 
in its future. The third, a leopard with four wings on the back, and 
four heads, represented Cyrus, the head of the Persian empire. The 
four wings are Persia, Media, Babylonia, and Egypt ; and the four 
heads are Cyrus's four successors — Cambyses, Smerdis, Darius 
Hystaspes ; while Xerxes and Darius Codomannus are merged into 
one in the indistinct view of the prophet. The fourth beast, most 
terrible and strong, with iron teeth and ten horns, among which an 
eleventh horn came up, and rooted out three of the ten, symbolises 
Alexander and his kingdom. 

The ten kings symbolised by the ten horns are : 1. Seleucus Ni- 
cator(312— 280 b. c.) ; 2. Antiochus Soter (279— 261) ; 3. Antiochus 
Theus (260—246); 4. Seleucus Callinicus (245— 226) ; 5. Seleucus 
Ceraunus (225— 223) ; 6. Antiochus the Great (222— 187) ; 7. Se- 
leucus Philopator (186 — 176) ; 8. Heliodorus, who had virtually pos- 
session of the throne, after Seleucus Philopator was poisoned (xi. 20.) ; 
9. Demetrius, the rightful heir to the throne after the death of his 
father Philopator, who was sent to Pome as a hostage instead of An- 
tiochus Epiphanes ; 10. Ptolemy IV. Philometor, for whom his mother 
Cleopatra, the sister of Antiochus Epiphanes, bespoke the Syrian 
throne. The last three were dispossessed of the throne by Antiochus 
Epiphanes. (vii. 24.) Heliodorus was expelled by Eumenes and At- 
talus in favour of Antiochus. Demetrius, referred to in xi. 20., was 
set aside, and not allowed to take possession of the throne to which 
he was the rightful heir. Ptolemy Philometor was prevented from 
occupying the throne by Antiochus. (xi. 22 — 28.) 

The little horn means Antiochus Epiphanes, who is said to have 
made war with the saints and prevailed against them ; but the Most 
High took away the dominion, and put an end to the church's op- 
pression, by giving all power to the Son of Man, who comes in the 
clouds of heaven, (vii.) 

The eighth chapter contains a vision of a ram with two horns, 
against which comes a he-goat with a notable horn between his eyes, 
and destroys it. The ram represents the Medo -Persian empire, the 
two horns being the Medes and the Persians, or Darius and Cyrus ; 



910 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

and the he-goat, the Grecian. The notable horn between the eyes of 
the he-goat is Alexander the Great ; and the four horns that spring 
up on the fracture of the great one, are the four kingdoms arising 
out of the monarchy of Alexander, viz. the Macedonian in the west, 
the Syrian in the east, the Egyptian in the south, and the Thracian 
in the north. The little horn which arises out of one of the four, 
which waxed exceeding great even to the host of heaven, cast down 
some of the host and of the stars to the ground, took away the daily 
morning and evening sacrifice, and desolated the sanctuary for 2300 
days, is Antiochus Epiphanes. (viii.) 

The ninth chapter contains the revelation which Daniel received 
respecting the seventy weeks of years. The prophet, understanding 
from the prophecies of Jeremiah that the seventy years' captivity was 
now drawing to a close, humbled himself in fasting and prayer for 
the sins of his people, and implored the restoration of Jerusalem. 
While in this act of confession, the angel Gabriel is sent to him, who 
announces that the holy city should be rebuilt and peopled, even in 
troublous times, and should subsist for seventy weeks, at the close of 
which it should be destroyed, (ix.) 

The last section contains the fourth prophetic vision, in the third 
year of the reign of Cyrus. After fasting and supplication, Daniel 
receives information respecting the farther development of the king- 
dom of God. From Cyrus, the prophecy briefly follows the course 
of Persian history, till Xerxes's expedition against the Greeks, 
comes to Alexander (ver. 3.) and the fall of his kingdom (ver. 4.), 
and then relates the events of the Ptolemy- Seleucidian wars till 
Antiochus Epiphanes, who began to hate the religion of Israel, and 
when a new expedition against Egypt was frustrated by a Roman 
fleet, turned the whole force of his indignation against the sanctuary, 
the worship of God, and the faithful adherents of the covenant- 
people. Here Rome first appears to the view of the prophet, but 
remotely ; for in xi. 30. the ships of Chittim refer to the Roman 
fleet ; and in the eighteenth verse, a -prince points out Scipio. The 
little help in xi. 34. is the Maccabean. The vision does not end with 
the death of Antiochus, but glances forward to the time of the general 
resurrection, (x. — xii.) 

We must now look back at a few particulars which have been the 
subject of much discussion. 

It is generally and rightly admitted, that the same four powers or 
kingdoms, are described in the second and seventh chapters. The 
imagery used to depict them is different, but the things represented 
are identical. The traditional and prevailing interpretation has 
always been that the Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Macedo-Grecian, 
and Roman empires are depicted. Hengstenberg, Havernick, Hof- 
mann, Caspari, Keil, Auberlen, have advocated this view more or 
less ably ; and there is no doubt that it appears to satisfy the condi- 
tions of the imagery, as far as these two chapters are concerned. 
But there are circumstances in the succeeding parts that render it 
improbable. 

Redepenning and Hitzig understand by the head of gold, Nebu- 



On the Booh of the Prophet Daniel. 911 

chadnezzar ; by the silver breast and arms, Belshazzar ; by the body, 
the Medo-Persian ; by the legs and feet, the Grecian empire. This 
is so unlikely and incongruous as to require no particular remark. 

Bertholdt and Stuart hold that the first monarchy is the Babylo- 
nian ; the second, the Medo-Persian ; the third, that of Alexander ; 
the fourth, that of his successors. In opposition to this, we shall only 
state that the book before us represents the Grecian kingdom as one. 
(viii. 21.) 

Eichhorn, Von Lengerke, Ewald, Delitzsch, make the first the 
Babylonian ; the second, the Median ; the third, the Persian ; the 
fourth, that of Alexander and his successors. This is the view which 
we have followed. 

Against the traditional interpretation which makes the fourth 
empire the Roman one, it may be remarked: — 

1. In the seventh chapter, the little horn which exalts itself and 
persecutes the church of God, arises out of the fourth empire, or, at 
least, from among the ten horns of it. In the eighth chapter, the 
little horn arises out of one of four horns belonging to the empire 
represented by the he-goat, which in no case is the Roman empire. 
If, therefore, the little horn described in these two chapters be the 
same — and the character assigned to both agrees, for they act in the 
same way towards Jehovah, his people, and his religion — the fourth 
kingdom in the seventh chapter, and that described in viii. 8., 
must be the same, since the little horn arises out of the one and 
the other alike. If the fourth empire mean that of Alexander and 
his successors, the description of the little horn applies to Antiochus 
Epiphanes. In no sense, however, did Antiochus arise out of the 
Roman empire. He was a Syrian. 

It is possible to regard the descriptions of the little horn in the 
seventh and eighth chapters as belonging to the same person or 
power and yet to pronounce the fourth empire the Roman one, by 
identifying the little horn with the pope of Rome, as Bishop New- 
ton does in the seventh chapter, and Wintle after him, who says, 
" the more general and better opinion refers it to Antichrist, or the 
papal usurpation." 1 But that is to confound two things which are 
quite distinct, for Antichrist is not the pope. He is a person who 
has not yet appeared ; or, rather, whose full manifestation is still 
future. And it is evident that he is destroyed before the Son of Man 
commences his reign ; and therefore he cannot be meant. Besides, 
the little horn in the eighth chapter cannot mean the pope, for his 
power was to last only 2300 days — which days are nothing but days ; 
not years, as has been incorrectly asserted. 2 Indeed Newton and 
those who commonly follow his view, inconsistently make the little 
horn the Roman temporal power in the eighth chapter; whereas, in their 
view, it ought to be the same as in the preceding chapter, i. e. the pope. 3 

2. The fourth empire is subverted and destroyed at the com- 

1 Daniel, an improved Version attempted, &c., note on chap, vii, 8. 

2 See this proved in Davidson's Introduction to the New Testament, vol. iii. p. 510. 
et seqq. 

3 See Dissertations xiv. and xv. 



912 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

mencement of the Messianic kingdom, as is plainly stated in ii. 44, 
45. We know, however, that the Roman empire stood for a 
considerable time after the coming of Messiah. Other arguments 
against considering the fourth the Roman empire, are given by 
Stuart 1 , but are not all valid. 

The strongest considerations in favour of the traditional interpre- 
tation of the fourth empire, are drawn from the New Testament ; 
and accordingly Hengstenberg and Havernick appeal to Matt. xxiv. 
15., Mark xiii. 14., for proof that the destruction of the Jewish state 
by the Romans was predicted by Daniel. The quotations refer to 
Dan. ix. 26, 27. To this Stuart replies, that there is no prediction, 
but mere similarity of events. What Daniel described as happening 
once, was about to happen again. 2 The answer is not sufficient or 
satisfactory, as will appear hereafter. 

The view we have adopted is liable to doubt and objection : this 
is freely admitted. Accordingly, Auberlen affirms that the book of 
Daniel knows but one Medo-Persian kingdom which succeeded the 
Babylonian ; in which, first Media, then Persia, bore rule. It is 
also stated, that Darius the Mede was insignificant ; that personally 
he took no active part in the conquest of Babylon, reigning there 
only some two years ; and that Media and Persia are combined and 
spoken of as one kingdom in viii. 20., v. 28., vi. 9. 13. 16. 3 All this is 
of less weight than would appear at first sight. The Medes and 
Persians are distinguished throughout the book ; the former not being 
merged in the latter. They are named in succession, the one fol- 
lowing the other, in v. 28., vi. 8. 12. 15. Darius is not a person of 
insignificance in the view of Daniel ; on the contrary, prominence is 
assigned to him as a Mede, of the seed of the Medes, vi. 1., ix. 1., xi. 1. ; 
while, on the other hand, Cyrus is distinguished as a Persian, vi. 28. 
In vi. 28. the kingdoms of Darius and Cyrus are expressly separated 
into two : " In the reign (kingdom) of Darius and in the reign (kingdom) 
of Cyrus the Persian." In like manner, Cyrus is called the king of 
Persia, x. 1., which Darius never is. That the dominion of Darius the 
Mede was important, notwithstanding its brief duration, is evident 
from x. 13. and xi. 1., for he is represented as withstanding the angel 
twenty-one days, till Michael came to help. The first year of Darius 
is the year of Israel's redemption from the Babylonish captivity. It 
is true that the vision in chapter viii. represents the Medo-Persian 
empire together in the form of a ram ; but even there, the two king- 
doms are distinguished as two horns — the one larger and of later 
growth than the other ; viz., the Persian in relation to the Median. 
On the whole, the book of Daniel appears to present the Median 
kingdom as an independent one, between the Babylonian and Per- 
sian empires. It formed a transition from the one to the other; 
and in that light may be considered of comparatively little import- 
ance in itself; but it had a momentous and independent character in 

1 Comp. Commentary on Daniel, p. 173. et seqq., and 205. et seqq. 

2 Ibid. pp. 190, 191. 

8 See Auberlen's der Prophet Daniel und die Offenbarung Johannis, p. 189. 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel 913 

relation to the history of Israel, and therefore in the view of the 
prophet. 1 

Into a perplexed subject like the prophecy of the seventy weeks 
in the ninth chapter, it would be out of place here to enter. We shall 
merely indicate a few particulars respecting it. Those weeks are 
manifestly divided into 7 + 62 + 1, and are weeks of years, i.e. 490 
years. It is said in the 26th verse, that, after the sixty-two weeks, 
i.e. at the beginning of the first week, an anointed one, W&Q, is 
cut off ; the people of a prince, TJJ, destroys the city and temple ; 
and even unto the end of the war desolations are inflicted. In the 
27th verse, it is related that many remain firm in their adherence 
to the covenant in this week, in the middle of which the sacrificial 
worship is interrupted by violence ; which interruption continues 
till the consummation determined be poured on the desolator. This 
first week is the time of Antiochus's persecution ; the half week, the 
time at which the persecution attains its highest point, corresponding 
to the time, times, and half a time, in vii. 25. and xii. 7. From history 
we learn that after Onias III., n^'p, the anointed one, had been mur- 
dered (176 b. a), Antiochus plundered the temple at Jerusalem (170 
B.C.), slew 80,000 Jews, and took 40,000 prisoners, polluted the 
sanctuary, and proceeded as if he meant to extirpate the Israelites 
and their religion. From 170 to the year of his death 164, is seven 
years; in the middle of which, i.e. 167, the cessation of the daily 
sacrifice, and the introduction of the statue of Zeus Olympius into the 
temple, occurred. This first week, as we have taken it, is preceded 
by sixty-two weeks, during which Jerusalem is rebuilt in troublous 
times (ver. 25.). If we reckon these 62 weeks = 434 years from the 
year 170, i.e. the beginning of the first week, we reach 604 B. C, viz. 
the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and first of Nebuchadnezzar, a year 
decisive of the fate of Jerusalem. So far all appears plain ; but the 
calculation is soon disturbed when the seven weeks come to be disposed 
of. What is to be clone with them ? Can we put them, with Hof- 
mann 2 , Wieseler 3 , and Delitzsch 4 , after the 62 + 1, not before ? Do 
they follow the 63, coming last in the 70 ; so that the end of them 
and of the 70, is coincident? This is favoured, according to Delitzsch, 
by a comparison of verses 24. and 27., which shows that the termi- 
nation of the 63 and of the 70 weeks cannot coincide, since, in the 
former, it is marked by judgment upon the desolator ; while, in the 
latter, it is marked by the fulfilment of prophecy, and finishing of 
transgression. Wieseler and Hofmann think that the termination 
of the seven weeks, or of the seventy, is not marked in history. 
They find no recorded event to which it corresponds. Hof- 
mann, with whom Delitzsch seems to agree, thinks that these seven 
weeks were meant to be an object of search {kpsvvav) to the faithful, 
when the thing prophesied did not take place at the termination of 
the sixty-three weeks. We confess that this is unsatisfactory. 

1 See Delitzsch in Herzog's Encyklopsedie, article Daniel. 

2 Weissagung unci Erfullung, vol. i. p. 296. et seqq. 

3 Die 70 Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen des Propheten Daniel, p. 124. et seqq. 

4 Article Daniel in Herzog's Encyklopa^die. 
VOL. II. 3 N 



914 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

But Delitzsch refers the first part of the 25th verse to the 
Messiah. " Know, therefore, and understand, that from the going 
forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto 
Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks." This is the final resto- 
ration of Jerusalem. The word, i. e. the joyful command, goes forth 
from God that Jerusalem must be finally restored, and that seven 
weeks are to elapse till the high priest and king, Jesus Christ, 
appear, in whom the glory of the new Jerusalem is perfected. The 
latter part, again, of the same verse, refers to a temporary rebuilding 
of Jerusalem, and a partial fulfilment of the prophecy. Here again 
the difficulty arises of bringing the 7 weeks = 49 years to the birth 
of Christ, for 163-49 do not reach to that event. 

What leads us to reject this explanation, as well as that of Wieseler 
and Hofmann relative to the placing of the seven years after the 63, 
will be seen from the following remarks. 

We begin with the latter part of the 26th verse, viz. ft and the 
people of the prince that shall come shall destroy the city and the 
sanctuary ; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto 
the end of the war desolations are determined. And he shall 
confirm the covenant with many for one week ; and in the midst 
of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, 
and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it de- 
solate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be 
poured upon the desolate." Such language can apply only to 
Antiochus Epiphanes, because of its parallelism to the descriptions 
of the same person in viii. 9 — 14., xi. 21 — 45. The prince that shall 
come is Antiochus. Going backward to the first part of the 26th 
verse, " And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut 
off, but not for himself; and," &c, w r e inquire, Do these words, 
with which the succeeding ones are closely connected, relate to a 
different subject, person, and time ? The presumption is, that they 
do not. They describe a thing which stands in connection with 
the abominable desolations of Antiochus. This is more probable 
when it is observed that the word n^ip, without the article, does not 
mean " the Messiah," but merely an anointed one, which may refer 
to any Jewish priest or king ; it is even applied to Cyrus in 
Isaiah; and when r> fX cannot mean "not for himself," but most 
probably, with Steudel and Hofmann, "there is none to it," i. e. 
" no anointed one to the people." Accordingly the words in the first 
part of the 25th verse may refer to Onias III., the high priest of the 
Jews in the time of Antiochus. Coming next to the 25th verse, 
we look upon it as a very improbable thing that the 7 weeks, though 
mentioned before the 62 weeks, should be numbered after them. It 
is natural to take them as the commencement of the 70, since they are 
named at the commencement, 7 + 62 + 1. It is also arbitrary to refer, 
Avith Delitzsch, the first part of the verse to the final rebuilding of 
Jerusalem, or the theocracy b} r Messiah, and the second part to a 
prior and literal rebuilding, which preceded the other. Trans- 
positions of this sort are violent, and should be avoided. In both 
clauses the rebuilding is the same. The structure and language of 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 915 

the verse also show that " Messiah the Prince " cannot mean 
Jesus Christ ; the words being literally " an anointed one, a prince." 
And the context indicates that he is not the same as " the anointed 
one " in the 26th verse. Who is meant is obscure ; and we have 
not room at present to enter into a detailed inquiry which would be 
necessary to throw light upon this person. Going back still to the 
24th verse, the language of it is plainly Messianic ; for the effects 
of Christ's coming and atoning for sin are described. The terms can 
scarcely be applied to a lower subject. 

These brief observations must suffice on a most perplexing sub- 
ject. The view now presented has encountered, however, much 
opposition. Many have thought that the entire passage in ix. 24 — ■ 
27. is Messianic; and that the fourth empire is the Roman not the 
Grecian. All such critics object to the opinion now advanced, as 
may be seen in Hengstenberg, Havernick, and Auberlen. But the 
difficulties, both philological and exegetical, against their hypotheses, 
are insuperable. If it be thought strange that we cannot point out 
in history the prince and anointed one spoken of in ix. 25., nor date 
the issuing of the decree to restore and build Jerusalem, which is 
supposed to constitute the terminus a quo of the seventy weeks, as 
the prince and anointed one does the terminus ad quern of the seven 
weeks, let it be remembered that the terminus a quo of Hengstenberg 
and others, i. e. the 20th of Artaxerxes, making the terminus ad 
quern the public appearance of Christ at the end of the 69 weeks ; 
the terminus a quo of Auberlen, i. e. the return of Cyrus to Jerusalem, 
457, making the terminus ad quern the martyrdom of Stephen, after 
which the Gospel passed over to the Gentiles, a. d. 33 ; and other 
calculations of the same kind, are exposed to insuperable objections, 
being built upon various arbitrary assumptions. 1 

The prophetic character of the book of Daniel is attested by our 
Lord in Matt, xxiv, 14., where we learn that the words of Daniel in 
ix. 26. refer to the desecration of the temple in the Roman war. 
This is not contrary to their allusion to Antiochus and his dese- 
cration of the temple, which was the primary and sole sense in the 
view of the prophet himself; for the same prophetic utterances may 
and do refer to more events than one. They are partially, but not 
completely, fulfilled at once, having a springing or germinant sense. 
In this way the sense of a prophecy may not be at once exhausted ; 
it remains in the course of history, and is gradually realised by suc- 
cessive events of a similar kind, prefigurative of one another. Thus 
the desolations of Antiochus were again enacted by the Romans. 
And the apostolic predictions of Antichrist lead us to expect that 
a persecuting blasphemer of like spirit with Antiochus is to come at 
the end of days, when this prophecy of Daniel will be exhaustively 
and perfectly fulfilled. Each succeeding fulfilment foreshadows and 
prepares for the last one. With such views we do not assent to the 
remarks of Stuart, who denies that in this and similar cases there is 

1 See Brief Kemarks on the Seventy Weeks mentioned by Daniel, in Bennett's The 
Temple of Ezekiel, &c., p. 117. et seqq. 



916 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

no proper prediction, and therefore no proper fulfilment. All that 
he contends for is a simple declaration of a historical fact. We be- 
lieve that there is more than mere similarity of events. The words 
of Daniel express more than what this scholar assigns to them in 
saying, " what he has described as happening in ancient times is 
about to happen now." l There is a providential connection between 
the events described by the prophet and those happening at the 
time when Jerusalem was surrounded by the Roman armies, in 
consequence of which the one foreshadowed the other, and therefore 
the prophecy includes both; the one in the foreground of the seer's 
vision, the other behind, but not less intended. It was not fulfilled 
in the one or the other series of events exclusively. 

Whether the fourth empire, which in Daniel's view was the last 
and filled the background of the picture in his internal vision, was 
prefigurative of another succeeding one, we cannot venture to affirm. 
The thing is not impossible. If it be likely, then the typical and 
antitypical blend together, and the features of the former are more 
fully realised in the latter, so as to fulfil the prophecy more satisfac- 
torily. It may be that the Grecian empire was intended to foreshadow 
the Roman in outline ; and although Daniel meant the one, and saw 
but one fulfilment of his words, there is nothing against the suppo- 
sition that there was another empire and a second fulfilment, which, 
though lying beyond the horizon of his spiritual vision, was yet in- 
cluded in the full picture by the Spirit of God. Perhaps the ad- 
vocates of the two views which regard the fourth dynasty as the 
Grecian and the Roman respectively, might find here a point of 
union which would prevent their exclusive attachment to one 
favourite hypothesis, and harmonise the jarring elements hitherto 
preventing agreement. 

That the entire book was written by one person is now no longer 
doubted. Eichhorn indeed assigned different authors to chapters 
ii. — vi., and vii. — xii., the former preceded by the introduction i. — 
ii. 3. 2 ; and Bertholdt 3 assumed various writers for the different 
sections ; but these unfounded hypotheses are now discarded. The 
two leading divisions are so related as that the one implies the 
existence of the other. Both have the same characteristics of 
manner and style, though a considerable portion of the book is in 
Chaldee, and the remainder in Hebrew ; i. e. ii. 4 — vii. 28. in the 
former. Mutual references between single sections may be seen in 
iii. 12. compared with ii. 49.; v. 2. compared with i. 2.; v. 11. 
compared with ii. 48. ; v. 18. &c. compared with iv. 22. &c. ; vi. 1. 
compared with v. 30. ; viii. 1. compared with vii. 1. ; ix. 21. com- 
pared with viii. 15. &c. ; x. 12. compared with ix. 23. ; and between 
the historical and prophetic divisions in ii. 28., iv. 2., vii. 10., com- 
pared with vii. 1, 2. 15.; v. 6. 9. compared with vii. 28.; iv. 16., 
v. 6. 10. compared with vii. 28.; iii. 4. 7. 31., v. 19., vi. 26. with 
vii. 14. &c. 

1 Commentary on Daniel, p. 191. 2 Einleitung, vol. iv. p. 515. et seqq. 

3 Einleitung, vol. iv. p. 1543. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 917 

If, then, the entire book proceeded from one person, the question 
arises, who was he? To this we reply, Daniel himself, for which 
the following arguments may be stated : — 

1. Daniel is often named in the second part as the receiver of the 
revelations communicated. Thus we read in vii. 2., "I saw in my 
vision by night," &c. Similar expressions occur in verses 4. 6. &c, 
28., viii. 1. &c, 15. &c, ix. 2. &c, x. 2. &c, xii. 5 — 8. In these 
places he speaks in the first person ; whereas in the historical narrative 
contained in the first six chapters, the third person is employed, 
which is natural. In xii. 4. the writer evidently implies that he was 
Daniel. "But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the 
book, even to the time of the end : many shall run to and fro, and 
knowledge shall be increased." Against this De Wette adduces the 
circumstance that the fifth book of Moses, Ecclesiastes, the Book of 
Wisdom, Tobit, are ascribed, by various notices in themselves, &C. 1 , 
to authors from whom they did not proceed. It has not, however, 
been shown satisfactorily that Moses did not write Deuteronomy. 
We believe that he did compose it. The books of Wisdom and 
Tobit do not occupy the same position as a canonical one ; and what is 
conceded in their case does not apply, of course, to any work included 
in the sacred collection. The only part of De Wette's argument 
possessing validity is that which relates to Ecclesiastes. And even 
there the parallel is vitiated by the fact that the writer of Eccle- 
siastes drops the mask, especially at the conclusion, allowing his 
readers to see through the disguise he assumed. (Compare xii. 9. &c.) 
He is not at all careful to conceal the fiction. 

2. Jewish tradition has uniformly assigned the book to Daniel. 
This is seen by its reception into the canon. The compilers of the 
sacred books were very uncritical and credulous, if they admitted a 
supposititious work among the rest. The Jewish synagogue has also 
acknowledged its authenticity. 

3. Christ himself recognises the prophecies of Daniel as real and 
true : " When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, 
spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place," &c. It 
appears, also, that in discoursing of his coming to destroy Jerusalem, 
he employed ideas and expressions occurring in this book. (Matt. 
xxiv. 30., xxv. 31., xxvi. 64.) Far be it from us to say here with 
De Wette, " Christ neither wished, nor could he, according to the 
nature of the case, be a critical authority." 2 But though he may not 
have purposed to appear on any occasion as a critical authority, 
would he have called Daniel a prophet, or have referred one of his 
predictions to the impending destruction of Jerusalem, if the one had 
been a fictitious personage, and the other no prophecy at all? 
Would he have made the mistake himself; or, knowing the truth, 
either led others into error, or fostered them in it ? We believe not. 
Neither ignorance nor error can be attributed to him ; nor can we 
think that he would have connived at a mistake of this nature in 
others. After the example of their divine Master, the apostles 

1 Einleitung, p. 387. 2 Einlcitung, p. 388. 



918 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

seem also to have believed that Daniel wrote the prophecies in his 
book. (See 2 Thess. ii. 3. compared with Dan. vii. .8. 25.; 1 Cor. 
vi. 2. compared with Dan. vii. 22.; Heb. xi. 33. compared with Dam 
vi. and iii.) 

4. Josephus relates that the Jews showed Alexander the Great 
the prophecies respecting him in the book of Daniel, when he entered 
Jerusalem ; and that he treated them more leniently on that account. 
This has been doubted by some ; and indeed it is not unlikely that 
the story is embellished. Some details may have been added by the 
historian. We know that Josephus is not always trustworthy. Yet 
the substance of the narrative cannot well be rejected ; for the fact 
that Alexander did treat the Jews favourably is explained by it. 
Otherwise his conduct is inexplicable. The relation bears the marks 
of truth in itself, and has been vindicated by Hengstenberg and Ha- 
vernick. It is an evidence at least of the existence of the book before 
the Maccabean period. 

5. The Septuagint version shows traces of acquaintance -with the 
book of Daniel, by bringing into the passage in Deut. xxxii. 8. the 
doctrine of guardian angels belonging to heathen kingdoms. " When 
the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of 
Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of 
the angels of God." 

6. The book of Daniel was used by the writer of Baruch, which 
latter was composed in the Maccabean period. This is evident from 
comparing the first and second chapters of the apocryphal work with 
the ninth of Daniel. Hitzig accounts for the similarity by attributing 
both works to one and the same person l ; which cannot be maintained, 
as Fritzsche has shown. 2 In like manner the first book of Maccabees 
presupposes a knowledge of the Septuagint version of Daniel on the 
part of the writer. (See i. 54. and Dan. ix. 27., ii. 59. &c. and Dan. iii.) 

7. The Alexandrian version of the book of Daniel is of such a 
nature as to indicate that it was made considerably after the Hebrew 
work appeared ; not contemporaneously with it. Such arbitrary treat- 
ment of the original would scarcely have been attempted, except some 
time after the latter. Besides, the Greek contains a number of 
special allusions to the persecutions of Antiochus ; showing that it 
was made when the impression caused by those cruelties was fresh. 

8. The state of the language employed corresponds to the time of 
the captivity when Daniel lived. The writer is familiar both with 
Hebrew and Chaldee, passing with ease from the one to the other, 
according to the nature of the subject. The fact presupposes that 
his readers were acquainted with both. Now this is unsuitable to 
the Maccabean period, at which time the Hebrew had been sup- 
planted by the Aramaean. The people had learned, by intercourse 
with the Babylonians, the Chaldee dialect ; and had not yet forgotten 
their mother tongue, the Hebrew. 

Although this argument has been advanced by Hengstenberg, 

1 Die Psalmen, u. s. w. vol. ii. p. 120. 

2 Kurzgefasstes Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apocryphen, i. p. 173. 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 91 9 

Havernick, Welte, Keil, and others, we attach no weight to it. It 
is weak and useless, because there are other books in Hebrew, writ- 
ten after the exile, such as Ecclesiastes, Chronicles, &c, showing 
that the Hebrew continued in use after the exile, at least among the 
learned. 

9. The Hebrew of the book of Daniel has considerable affinity to 
that of the books written at the time of the exile, especially Ezekiel. 
Thus, JinQ, i. 5. the king's meat (33, Ezek. xxv. 7.); 2% i. 10. to 
cause to forfeit; and 3'in, debt, Ezek. xviii. 7.; 3H3 for ISD, x. 21. and 
Ezek. xiii. 9.; D^S ^W, x. 5. clothed in linen, and Ezek. ix. 2. 11.; 
"IHT, xii. 3. brightness, and Ezek. viii. 2.; ^-VO, viii. 9. the pleasant land 
(of Israel), and Ezek. xx. 6. 15.; Dn«")3, viii. 17. son of man, fre- 
quently used in Ezekiel. 

Von Lengerke accounts for this by imitation? The writer of the 
book of Daniel copied Ezekiel. But this is to beg the question. 2 

10. The Aramaean of the book coincides with the Aramaean of 
the book of Ezra, and is distinguished from the Chaldee dialect of 
the oldest Targums by many Hebraisms. Thus n instead of K occurs 
as the final letter of feminine nouns. See vi. 23. and Ezra vii. 17, 
18.; Dan. vii. 7. The conjugation Aphel is as the Hebrew Hiphil, 
ii. 25., vi. 29., vi. 7.; and Ezra v. 12., vi. 17.; Dan. ii. 24.; Ezra v. 
14. &c. So in the infinitive, Pael npap, ii. 14., and similarly rn;?3 5 Ezra 
vii. 14. In like manner, verbs, Lamed He instead of Lamed Aleph, 
as nn-j, iv. 8.; nj;2, ii. 16. Patach furtive, which is foreign to the 
Chaldee, pi'operly speaking, is found in Ty7V, v. 24., and Ezra vii. 14. 
The dual number also occurs in ii. 34., Ezra vi. 17., Dan. vii. 7.41. 
We have also the segholate forms G?D, \"i$, "|2?p. A passive praster 
is formed by uniting the participle peil with the sufformatives of the 
prater, as in Dan. v. 27, 28. 30., vi. 4., vii. 4. 6. 11. ; Ezra v. 14. 3 
H, characteristic of Aphel, is retained in the future and participle 
between the preformative and the verb, Dan. v. 29.; Ezra v. 12. &c. 
The place of Ittaphal is supplied by Hophal, Dan. iv. 33., vii. 11.; 
Ezra iv. 15. VT. is treated as a verb pe nun, Dan. ii. 9. 30., iv. 22. ; 
Ezra iv. 15. ; of which only one example has yet been found in the 
Targums, Ruth iv. 4. This conformity between the Aramaising of 
Daniel and Ezra can scarcely have arisen from imitation of one by 
the other, since each shows his independence by a number of peculiar 
forms. Thus, in Daniel, we have the plural terminations l"n?, }b? ; 
in Ezra D'rrp, Dbp. In the former, both forms, jisn and i»n, occur; 
in the latter only the abbreviated form. In Daniel we have ?tSS, to go, 
vi. 19.; for which Ezra has ^ln, v. 5., vi. 5. Daniel has P1313, 
treasurers, iii. 2. 3. ; whereas Ezra has the sibilant letter in the 
noun, "I3T.3, i. 8., vi\ 21.: for vlj, a dunghill, in Dan. ii. 5., iii. 29. 
•1?U appears in Ez' a vi. II. 4 



1 Das Buch Daniel verdeutscht unci ausgelegt, p. Ix. 

2 See Havemick's neue Kritische Untersuchungen, p. 97. 

3 Comp. Winer's Grammar of the Chaldee Language, translated by Hackett, p. 51. 

4 See Keil's Einleit. pp, 446, 447. 

3 n 4 



020 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

1 1. The book manifests an accurate acquaintance on the part of the 
writer with the historical relations, customs, and manners belonging 
to the time of Daniel. Among these may be specified the following: — 

In i. 7. it is stated that Daniel and his companions, when taken to 
be prepared for the king's service, received new names. That this 
was a Chaldean custom we learn from 2 Kings xxiv. 17. The names 
are Chaldee, and connected with those of the Babylonian gods. 

In ii. 5. the king threatens that if the magi could not interpret his 
dream, their houses should be made a dunghill. This shows an ac- 
curate knowledge of the method in which the Babylonian houses 
were built, as well as of their materials, which were burnt or dried 
day. 

In ii. 5. and iii. 6. there are evidences of an exact acquaintance 
with the forms of capital punishment in use among the Chaldeans. 
The cutting in pieces, and burning in a fiery furnace, were both 
suited to the character of a barbarous people. In the sixth chapter, 
a new kind of punishment is described as usual with the Medo-Per- 
sians, viz. throwing into a den of lions. 

In iii. 21. the dress of Daniel's companions agrees with what is 
known from other sources of the Babylonian clothing. Herodotus 
states l that the dress of the Babylonians consisted of a linen garment 
reaching to the feet, over that a woollen coat, and upon that, a white 
upper covering, thrown around them. 

According to v. 2. women were present at the royal banquet. 
We know from Xenophon 2 that this was the practice of the Baby- 
lonian court before the Persian conquest. But the Septuagint, fol- 
lowing the practice then prevalent, has omitted mention of the 
women at Belshazzar's feast. 

The accounts of the priestly caste among the Babylonians also 
coincide with those found in profane writers, as has been minutely 
shown by Hengstenberg. 3 This is admitted both by Miinter and 
Schlosser. 

Daniel never speaks of adoration being offered to the kings of 
Babylon, although the usage was an ancient oriental one. Arrian 
states 4 that Cyrus was the first who received such homage, because 
Ormuzd was thought to be personified in the king of Persia. 

In relation to the laws of the Medo-Persians, they were deemed 
irrevocable when once given by the king. But no such doctrine 
prevailed among the Chaldeans. See Daniel vi, 8. &c. 5 

In opposition to this argument, it has been contended that there 
are historical inaccuracies which exclude the idea of an eye-witness 
and contemporary writer. These will be referred to again, as they 
are by no means established. We admit that the ground before us 
is not decisive. It does not possess the weight which Hengstenberg 
appears to attach to it ; for much may have been derived from tradi- 
tion, and from an acquaintance with Babylon. Yet it is improbable 



Historian Lib. 1. exev. - Cyropted. v. 2. 

Beitrage, vol. i. p. 333. et seqq. 4 Lib. iv. 

Hengstenberg's Beitrage, vol. i. p. 311. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel 92 1 

that an author in the Maccabean times should have been so uni- 
formly accurate in his narrative, without having been in Babylon 
itself. 

12. The prophecies of Daniel are conformed to the times of the 
exile and the personal position of the prophet himself in Babylon. 
Their form and contents differ from other prophetic writings. After 
the exile, the theocracy assumed an altered phase. It was virtually 
merged in the leading dynasties of the world, having lost for a while 
its own independent character, at least to the eyes of men. Its con- 
tinuance and further development were mixed up with the progress 
of the world's history contained in the successive empires that 
appeared. Hence it could emerge from obscurity and attain its 
appointed glory only by their destruction. To show the hostility of 
the world's power to the kingdom of God, it was needful to enter 
into detailed and special predictions respecting the future of that 
worldy power, as embodied in the leading empires which successively 
prevailed. The position of Daniel in the Babylonian court was ad- 
mirably adapted to the duties he was called to perform relative to the 
purposes of Deity. Placed in the first monarchy, he could survey its 
character more accurately, finding in it a historical starting point for 
his visions. He was learned in the wisdom of the Babylonians, and 
could employ that learning in the service of his God. He uses more 
of symbolical language than the purely Hebrew prophets, in accord- 
ance with the Babylonish taste. All is designated by material em- 
blems. Beasts are the representatives of kings and kingdoms. The 
imagery is also cast in a gigantic mould. By this means, the haughty 
rulers of Babylon might be led to see most intelligibly the nothing- 
ness of the earthly wisdom and arts of the wise men in whom they 
trusted, and apprehend the wisdom belonging to the Omnipotent 
Lord of heaven and earth, to whom all are subject. And as the 
divine revelations communicated to the prophet were meant, not 
merely for the world's rulers, but principally for the vcoenant-people ; 
the development of the theocracy within earthly history must be re- 
presented in clear and definite outlines. It is remarkable that the 
mode of exhibition varies with the Chaldee and Medo-Persian 
dynasties, according to the pre vailing taste of the two peoples. 1 

It is observable that the vision of the prophet reaches no farther 
than the Grecian empire. The horizon beyond was dim and misty. 
He did see the coming of Messiah, who was to renew the theocracy, 
pointing the covenant-people to him as a star of light in the distance 
to cheer them under heavy persecutions impending ; but his notice 
is brief and general. Is it likely that the prophet could not separate 
the two dynasties, — that of Alexander and his successors, and the 
Roman ? Was he not so far enlightened as to perceive both in their 
distinctness? Or, did he present the one as foreshadowing the 
other, and put into it the traits of both ? Such suppositions are not 
improbable, though we dare not assert anything positive. 2 

1 See Hengstenberg's Beitrage, vol. i. p. 191. et seqq. 

2 Comp. Delitzsch's Article in Herzog's Encyklopredic on Daniel. 



922 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Notwithstanding all that has been said on behalf of the authenticity 
of Daniel, the book has been exposed to many attacks since the 
conclusion of the eighteenth century. Porphyry, as we learn from 
Jerome, denied its authenticity ; but no other opponent is known, in 
Christian antiquity, who took the same course as he. Corrodi may 
be called the first, in modern times, who plainly declared the work 
to be an impostor's in the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. He was 
followed by Eichhorn, by Bertholdt who was the foremost in giving 
a critical basis and form to the attack, Griesinger, Gesenius, Bleek, 
Kirms, De Wette, Redepenning, Rosenmiiller, Von Lengerke, Hitzig, 
Knobel, Ewald. The authenticity has been defended by Luderwald, 
Staudlin, Beckhaus, Dereser, Jahn, Pareau, Sack, Hengstenberg, 
Havernick, Herbst and Welte, Scholz, Keil, Stuart, Auberlen. 
Let us glance at the principal arguments on both sides. 

1. The position of the book among the Hagiographa shows that it 
was unknown when the prophetical writings were put together. 

To this Hengstenberg replies, that the distinction between the 
Prophets and Hagiographa is not at all of a chronological kind, but 
is founded on the peculiar character and office of the writers. The 
prophetic gift should be discriminated from the prophetic office. The 
one was common to all who were inspired ; the other to the regular 
prophets, whose office it was to communicate the Divine will to the 
Jewish people. The books written by these prophets as such, formed 
the second division of the Hebrew Bible. The third contains in- 
official prophecies. 1 This is repeated by Havernick, Keil, and 
Auberlen. 

The reply in question appears to us entirely unsatisfactory. The 
distinction made between the prophetic gift and the prophetic office 
is a modern one ; and when it is attributed to the compilers of the 
canon, the assumption is baseless. There is not a shadow of proof that 
it was known to them. Were it necessary to go into the subject of 
the canon, it might be shown, that the sentiments of Hengstenberg, 
Havernick, and their followers, respecting it, are erroneous. The first 
two divisions were finished before the third was begun or made. "We 
reject in like manner the solution of Stuart 2 , viz. that the ancient 
Jews classified Daniel among the prophets, — the present Talmudic 
arrangement of the Hagiographa not being the original one. This 
is based on the authority of Josephus, who classes Daniel among 
the prophets. But it is useless to argue from the statements of 
Josephus, as if he meant to give the original arrangement of the 
books in the three leading divisions — the law, the prophets, the 
Hagiographa. There is no evidence whatever that he either gives 
that arrangement, or meant to give it. He enumerates the books in 
his own way. We are firmly persuaded of the fact, that the Tal- 
mudic arrangement is the oldest, and is best attested as such : by it 
Daniel is put among the hagiographa, not among the prophets. Why 
the book was so placed, we confess our inability to explain. It has 

1 Hengstenberg's Beitrage, vol. i. p. 23. et seqq. 
* Commentary on Daniel, p. 426. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 923 

not been accounted for by any critic ; and we have not the means of 
solving the problem. 

In connection with the position of Daniel, an objection has been 
raised from Dan. ix. 2., where it is written, " I Daniel understood by 
books.'''' It is said that the writer means by the phrase D ,- "!St?3 (by the 
books), the Old Testament as a collection ; that it is equivalent to 
to. (3tj3\[a, the books, i. e. the holy books ; and therefore the collection 
had been completed before his day, — the canon had been closed. It 
is very probable, however, that a Jew living after the close of the 
canon would have employed the technical word D'l-IDSn, equivalent 
to at ypafyai, to designate the entire collection. Wieseler's l opinion 
that the allusion is to the two Scripture rolls, Jeremiah xxv. and xxix. 
(comp. xxv. 13., xxix. 1.), is improbable, because of the article here 
prefixed. Those chapters could scarcely be called the books. Be- 
sides, the reckoning of Daniel assumes nothing about the seventy 
years in Jeremiah xxix., but attaches itself to the 25th chapter. We 
refer the term in question to some private collection, in which Jere- 
miah's prophecies were included. The article has an indefinite sense, 
some, or a, as in Judges xiv. 6., 2 Kings iv. 18. Hitzig's objection 2 
to this interpretation is valueless. 

2. The silence of Jesus Sirach in the 49th chapter respecting 
Daniel is of some importance, because the alleged historical position 
of the prophet makes him of consequence. Any argument of this 
nature, an agumentum e silentio, is of little weight, unless it can be 
shown that there was a necessity for mentioning the person omitted ; 
or, at least, a high probability that he would have been noticed. 
Neither circumstance applies here. The twelve minor prophets are 
omitted as well as Daniel. So is Ezra. 

3. Daniel is spoken of in a laudatory way, which could hardly 
have proceeded from himself. Honourable epithets are appended to 
his name. See i. 17. 19. &c, v. 11. &c, vi. 4., ix. 23., x. 11. To 
this objection Hengstenberg and Keil reply that some of these 
laudatory expressions proceed from others, and are no more than a 
faithful record of what was said of him or to him. Of this nature is 
v. 11, 12., where the queen says to Belshazzar, " There is a man in 
thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods ; and in the days 
of thy father, light, and understanding, and wisdom, like the wisdom 
of the gods, was found in him," &c. &c. Sometimes these epithets 
are designed to glorify God who endowed his servant with marvellous 
wisdom, as in i. 17. 19. &c, vi. 4. Or they serve to fill out the 
description given, which would otherwise be incomplete. And they 
may all be compared with similar expressions respecting himself of 
the apostle Paul, in the Epistles to the Corinthians. They contain 
no self-laudation inconsistent with the fact that the book was com- 
posed by Daniel himself. 

The answer is not entirely satisfactory. Passages like i. 19, 
20., vi. 4., are not well accounted for. They are not necessary 
to fill out the description. They are not similar to what Paul 

1 Die 70 Wochen, u. s. w. p. 4, ■ Das Buch Daniel erklait, p. 146. 



924 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

says of hinlself; find the occasion is wholly different. We believe 
that some of these expressions are not such as are suitable in 
the case of Daniel himself. He would scarcely have written them. 
But this does not affect the general authorship of the book, as we 
shall see hereafter. 

4. The later origin of the book is said to be indicated in the 
corrupt Hebrew and Chaldee diction, as well as the Greek words 
occurring. Here the following words are adduced, which are found 
in none of the succeeding books, words of a late age, Chaldee and 
Persian. HJ3, xi. 24. 33., prey; jn£, i. 4. 17., knowledge; nri?, x. 21., 
the writing ox scripture; ITp, x. 11., trembling ; COJ^S), i. 3., nobles; 
n§>£, xi. 45., a -palace; *j6S&, i. 20., ii. 2., an enchanter ; *?% i. 10., 
an age or generation ; D^'lT, D^Vlt, i. 12. 16., vegetables ; D^E???, xi. 
43., treasures ; TDFin, without r6iy or Wp, viii. 11-13., xi. 31., xii. 
11., the daily sacrifice ; ^Jp.D, xi. 32., to seduce to apostasy ; ^rirr, ix. 
24., to decree; Dtri, x. 21., to xorite down or record; ^b^Q, viii. 13. such a 
one; D^BHi?, applied to the Jews, viii. 24. The Syriac infinitive, 
n-1-13 npn, xi. 23. ; the Persian words, tn|, v. 29., to -proclaim ; t'na, 
iii. 4., a herald ; nap), ii. 6., a gift. 

The manner of writing is also pronounced to be partly careless, 
embarrassed, and obscure ; partly laboured and artificial. Other pe- 
culiarities are, the omission of the article, the poetical use of the 
apocopated future, and imitation of the Pentateuch. Daniel makes 
use, not only of Ezekiel, but also of Nehemiah ix. 

Among Greek words are reckoned Dnrvp, fcfflapis; K?30, aa^vict]; 
nVJSlp-lD, avficf)avca: H??D5, -^raXW-jpiov. (iii. 5. 7. 10.) 

The corrupt nature of the Hebrew used by Daniel cannot be de- 
nied. Nor can his manner of writing be defended as good. The 
style is prosaic, even in the prophetic parts ; so that Lowth excludes 
the whole book from the class of poetical writings. The historical 
descriptions are prolix in details ; but the prophetical are more rhe- 
torical and lively. But surely the circumstances of his life and edu- 
cation may account for any defects observable in the style and dic- 
tion. He was brought up in Babylon and spent his life there. Can 
it be expected that he should write like a Palestinian Jew who lived 
in his own country ? Chaldee and Persian words also occur in the 
writings of all who lived at the time of the exile. And that Daniel 
has some which the rest have not, is a thing which may be said of 
each one who lived and wrote about the same time. Besides, the 
Persian words quoted are more correctly, Syriac ones. As to the 
four Greek words signifying certain musical instruments, they may 
have been derived from Greece by intercourse between the Baby- 
lonians and Greeks. Both the instruments and their names may have 
been transferred from the one country to the other, as De Wette 
himself admits. According to the testimony of the ancients, the 
aa/ju^vKr] of the Greeks was of oriental origin. 

5. Attention has been called to the legendary contents of the nar- 
rative part, which is said to be full of improbabilities, of dazzling 
miracles, and even of historical inaccuracies, resembling no prophetic 
book of the Old Testament, and presenting descriptions moulded 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 925 

pretty much after one and the same type. Such a spirit of miracle- 
seeking, and the religious fanaticism nourished by persecutions 
which breathes through the book, place it on a level with the second 
book of Maccabees, and betray its origination in the time of 
Antiochus. 1 

Here a number of assertions are accumulated which require careful 
examination ; as it is much easier to advance than to prove them. We 
are inclined to think that they proceed from mistaken views, not only 
of miracles generally, but of the purpose which the miracles of Daniel 
in particular were intended to serve. Indeed, the nature of the whole 
book is imperfectly apprehended, as well as the spirit and customs of 
the old oriental world, by those who argue in this manner. 

The importance which the Babylonians and other ancient nations 
attached to visions and dreams, and the cruelty of Asiatic despots, 
attest the probability of Nebuchadnezzar's requirement of the magi 
not merely to interpret, but to tell his dream on pain of death. The 
historical truth of the narrative must not be rejected because of the 
arbitrary command ; especially as the monarch may have only intended 
to try the wise men in commanding them to tell the dream. 

The huge and expensive image described in the third chapter, 
though ridiculed by critics of a certain class, corresponds with the 
images of the Babylonians, which were marked by colossal size and 
disproportion. The disproportion between length and breadth, which 
is sometimes said to render the standing of the image impossible, will 
not be so great if the form was that of an obelisk. And the epithet 
golden probably means no more than gilt. 

The refusal of the three friends of Daniel to worship the idol shows 
their firm faith in the true God. They were martyrs of the olden 
time. The punishment inflicted on them by Nebuchadnezzar accords 
with the known cruelty of his disposition. 

Again, the madness of the king, noticed in the fourth chapter, is 
confirmed by a brief notice in a fragment of Abydenus. Hengsten- 
berg also quotes Berosus. But this historian says no more than that 
Nebuchadnezzar was sick and died. Whether the notice of Abydenus 
be independent of the Bible account is not clear, though Keil 2 posi- 
tively asserts its independence. It may perhaps be traditionally con- 
nected with it. 

The non-appearance of Daniel among the other wise men, before 
Belshazzar, as we see in the fifth chapter, is perfectly intelligible, on 
the ground that oriental monarchs usually removed from office the 
priests, astrologers, and physicians of their predecessors. The decree 
issued by Cyrus (chapter vi.) that no request should be made of God 
or man for thirty days, except of himself, is not at all incredible, 
when we remember that the apotheosis of the king as an incarnation 
of Ahuro-Mazdao is sanctioned by the Zend-religion. Besides, pro- 
fane history presents analogies. In describing the lions' den, the 
writer calls it 23 (vi. 8. 18.) ; but this does not show that he meant to 
designate it as a funnel-shaped cistern where there was no air ; for the 

1 Dc Wette's Einleitung, pp. 3S2, 383. \ Einleit. p. 455. 



926 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

word means a pit or hole of any kind ; and in Syriac it is applied to 
the dens of wild beasts, as well as to prisons. 

Among "historical inaccuracies" we may notice the following: 
The contradiction between i. 5. 18., where it is stated that Daniel and 
his companions were instructed three years in the wisdom of the 
Egyptians before they appeared in the presence of the king; whereas, 
according to ii. 1. &c, Daniel interprets the king's dream in the second, 
year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. This is solved by the fact that when 
Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem, and carried Daniel to Babylon, he 
had not ascended the throne. He was leader of his father's armies, 
and is termed king by anticipation. Hence Daniel and his friends 
completed their three years' course of training in the second year of 
Nebuchadnezzar's actual reign. 

Darius the Mede is mentioned in vi. 1., ix. 1., xi. 1., instead of 
Cyaxares II. But surely he may be called by different names in 
different writers. Nothing of consequence can be drawn from the 
silence of Herodotus respecting him. Josephus x states that the son 
of Astyages had among the Greeks another name, i. e. Cyaxares, 
according to Xenophon. This Cyaxares was uncle of Cyrus, a weak 
and voluptuous monarch who entrusted his nephew with the manage- 
ment of affairs, and gave him his daughter in marriage, so that Cyrus 
succeeded to the Median throne. There is no reason for doubting 
the existence of Darius the Mede, as Von Lengerke and Hitzig do. 

A number of difficulties which some think insuperable lie in the 
accounts of the fifth and sixth chapters respecting Belshazzar's feast 
and death, and the transference of the Babylonian kingdom to the 
Medes, connected with them. It is affirmed that the last king of 
Babylon was not a son of Nebuchadnezzar ; that his name was not 
Belshazzar ; and that he was not slain when Babylon was taken by 
Cyrus. 

Two ways of resolving these perplexities have been adopted. 

(a.) Hofmann 2 , following Marsham, supposes that the death of 
Belshazzar (v. 30.) does not stand in connection with the taking of 
Babylon by the Medes and Persians and the termination of the 
Babylonian kingdom ; but that Belshazzar, the son and successor of 
Nebuchadnezzar, is Evilmerodach, who was murdered by his brother- 
in-law Neriglissar. The notice of Darius the Mede in vi. 1. is 
appended to the murder of Belshazzar only because what befel Daniel 
under his reign had to be related at this place. The same view is 
taken by Havernick 3 and Oehler. 4 But it is liable to serious objec- 
tion. According to Berosus, and the canon of Ptolemy, Evilmero- 
dach reigned but two years ; whereas the third year of Belshazzar 
(Evilmerodach) is mentioned in viii. 1. Besides, there is a natural 
and close connection between v. 30. and vi. 1., which shows that the 

1 Antiqq. x. 11. 4. 

2 Die siebenzig Jahre des Jeremias und die siebenzig Jahrwochen des Daniel, p. 44. 
et seqq. 

3 Neue Kritische Untersuchungen, p. 71. et seqq. 

4 In Tholuck's Litterarischer Anzeiger for 1842, p. 398. 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel 927 

downfal of the kingdom is related to the death of Belshazzar as the 
last king. And vi. 1. is attached by the copulative 1 to v. 30. 

(b.) Belshazzar must be identical with him who, as the last king 
of Babylon, is called Nabonnedus by Berosus, or Nabonadius in the 
canon of Ptolemy, but Labynetus by Herodotus. The account of 
the feast in the fifth chapter of Daniel is confirmed by Xenophon * 
and Herodotus 2 , according to whom Babylon was taken during a 
voluptuous revel, as had been predicted by Isaiah and Jeremiah. 
Herodotus says, that Labynetus was even son of Nebuchadnezzar. 
The queen-mother (v. 10.) may therefore be Nitocris, who is spoken 
of by Herodotus and Berosus. The account of Berosus is very 
different, viz. that the Babylonian king was one of the conspirators 
against Laborosoarchad ; had reigned seventeen years when Cyrus 
invaded the city ; that he went out to meet Cyrus; was vanquished, 
and threw himself into the fortress Borsippa ; that he afterwards 
surrendered to Cyrus, who allowed him to dwell in Caramania, where 
he died a natural death. Abydenus's account is similar, only that 
he makes Nabonnidos the governor of Caramania after Babylon was 
taken. The statements of Megasthenes agree in the main with those 
of Berosus and Abydenus ; while Josephus accords. The contra- 
diction is most apparent in what Berosus says of Labonnedus, two, 
TOiv sk Ba§v\(ovo?, involving a denial that he was of royal blood, a 
statement confirmed by Megasthenes, who says he had no claim to 
the throne. In opposition to Stuart 3 , we believe that the words of 
Berosus and Megasthenes involve a denial of Belshazzar's descent 
from Nebuchadnezzar ; and are alike contradictory to Daniel's state- 
ment, whether ">3 be taken as son, grandson, or descendant. The 
question now is, whether the testimony of Herodotus, with whom 
agree Daniel and Xenophon, is to be preferred to that of Berosus. 
We believe it should be. It is true that Herodotus was a Greek 
writer who lived long after the occurrences in question ; while Bero- 
sus was an older and a credible Chaldee writer. The latter drew his 
materials from Babylonian tradition ; yet it is quite possible that 
tradition was moulded in such a shape as to soften the disgrace 
attendant upon the downfal of Babylon and of the empire, and even 
to deny that one belonging to the royal race was conquered on that 
occasion. 

There is no difficulty in holding that Belshazzar was a mere title 
of honour; or that Darius the Mode was Cyaxares II., between 
Astyages I. and Cyrus. 

It is also said, that the book of Daniel speaks of satraps and 
satrap-provinces, which cannot be thought of under the Babylonians, 
and at the time Babylon was taken by the Medes and Persians, (iii. 
3., vi. 2.) According to Xenophon, satrapies must have first existed 
under Cyrus; according to Herodotus, under Darius Hystaspes. 
The answer to this is, that neither Xenophon nor Herodotus indicate 

1 Cyropaed. vii. 5. 15. &c. 2 Historiar. i. 191. 

3 Commentary on Daniel, pp. 144, 145. 



928 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

that satraps did not exist among the Medes and Babylonians before 
Cyrus and Darius. 

There are also alleged errors in the account given of the wise 
men at Babylon. The author of Daniel's book names five classes of 
wise men ; whereas antiquity knows no more than three. Hence it 
is inferred that the writer has heaped their names together out of 
other biblical books, transferring the Egyptian D^p-jn, [spoypa/x- 
puarsh, to Babylon, where as yet there was no hieroglyphic writing, 
and making a distinct class of the PP^D in ii. 27., whereas the epithet 
comprehends the whole class of the magi. Here an unwarranted 
assertion is made by Von Lengerke, viz. that antiquity is agreed in 
making but three classes of magi. Ctesias speaks only of two ; and 
Strabo ' expressly speaks of more than three classes. We learn also 
from credible authors, that there was a sacred writing of which the 
priestly caste had charge, which justifies the use of the word D*£>p*in 
as the appellation of a proper priestly class. The assertion respecting 
pp^n in ii. 27. is incorrect; since the word, both there and elsewhere 
in Daniel, has a generic sense. 2 

It is also pronounced incredible that Daniel and his companions, 
who were so firmly attached to pure monotheism, should be received 
into the number of the magi. 

This objection is difficult only because the accounts in the book do 
not enable us to judge of the exact relation in which Daniel stood 
to the magi. To assert that he could not have avoided idolatry by 
coming into contact with them, is gratuitous, unless it could be 
shown that the wisdom of Chaldea was absolute falsehood, and that 
it was impossible for a pious Israelite to have anything to do with it 
without partaking of the guilt of idolatry. Besides, Daniel and his 
companions appear simply as disciples of the magi, and only so far 
belonging to their body (ii. 13.); not as active members. The eleva- 
tion of Daniel to be their head forms an exception to the ordinary 
procedure. On the whole, we see nothing improbable in thinking 
that they may have been connected with this corporation without 
injury to their moral character or principles ; perhaps even to their 
benefit, intellectually. All that is written of them in the book com- 
ports with the idea that they would not have willingly joined the associ- 
ation had they suspected that it would prove injurious to their piety. 
The royal mandate may have compelled them to do so ; but their 
own choice would have been otherwise. 

In ix. 1. Ahasuerus is said to have been the father of Darius the 
Mede instead of Astyages. But the word appears to have been a 
mere appellative. It is Persian, coming from a root meaning lion. 
Hence it may have been given to many persons. 

Elam is mentioned as a province of the Babylonian empire (viii. 2.), 
whereas it was a province of the Median empire, as appears from 
Isaiah xxi. 2. and Jeremiah xxv. 25. Shushan is named as the capital 
of Elam. 

The prediction in Jeremiah xxv. 25. represents Elam not as a pro- 



xvi. i. § 6. 



See HLivcrnick's Neuc kritische Untersuch. p. 66. et secjq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel, 929 

vince of Media, but an independent monarchy, and foretels its over- 
throw. Elam in viii. 2. does not mean all Persia, but Susiana in the 
wider and usual sense, i. e. Elyinais and Susiana together. There 
are no accounts which prove that Susiana was not dependent on 
Babylon at the time referred to in Daniel. Besides, Daniel was at 
Shushan only in vision, not bodily. That a palace is spoken of at 
Shushan whereas the palace there was built by Darius Hystaspes 
according to Pliny, is of no weight ; because Pliny's statement is con- 
tradicted by all Greek and oriental writers, who represent the place 
as very ancient. Athenaaus says that it was called Shushan on ac- 
count of the multitude of lilies growing in that region, which is re- 
concileable with any date of the place. 

6. The miracles recorded in the book have been adduced against 
its authenticity. They are lavishly heaped up, without any apparent 
object ; and are partly unlike those elsewhere related. Such prodigal 
expenditure of them, without a becoming purpose, is unworthy of the 
Deity. Underlying this objection is an idea of the impossibility of 
miracle, or what surpasses the known laws of nature, and exhibits the 
immediate operation of divine power. That miracles, however, did and 
do occur in the history of God's kingdom, we look upon as an unde- 
niable fact. As to their accumulation, and the colossal form of some 
related, in the book of Daniel, we believe that both can be justified. 
A good reason can be assigned for them. Such facts, attesting the 
divine power and grace, are noted in this book as have a tendency to 
awe the heathen into forbearance and respect towards the covenant- 
people,and to bring the proud might of worldlyrulers to honour the God 
of Isi'ael as the Lord of heaven and earth, recognising his supreme 
control of all that happens in the world, his ability to protect his ser- 
vants, as well as to punish and bring down the pride of the mightiest 
potentates of earth. It is true that the miracles here recorded tend 
to exalt Daniel and his companions ; but this arises from the fact that 
Daniel is the representative of the people of God at the time and 
place specified. He is the outward impersonation of the theocracy 
in the sight of the heathen world ; so that its maintenance and resto- 
ration are inseparably connected with him. The heathen powers 
among whom his lot was cast were accustomed to colossal forms and 
figures. Hence the wonders wrought must have a powerfully im- 
posing character, and make a suitable impression on such a people. 
They must be striking to the outward senses, that the violent up- 
holders of heathenism may be overawed and convinced. And that 
they did produce the desired effect, we see from the termination of 
the exile ; especially from the decree of Cyrus, which expressly 
honours the God of Israel as the God of heaven, and recommends the 
erection of a temple to His name. 1 

7. The prophetic contents of the book, it is alleged, are distin- 
guished from other prophetic works by their apocalyptic character ; 
for the future of the Messianic kingdom is comprehended in definite 
relations of time ; and the materials so developed are presented in a 

1 Comp. Keil, Einleit. pp. 459, 460. 
VOL. II. 3 o 



930 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

greater array of symbols, in the form of visions, &c. Such npoca- 
lyptic taste, it is argued, which originated with the later Jews, ex- 
pressed itself in the fabrication of prophecies Avhich were transferred 
to antiquity, as the analogous sibylline books show. Besides, the 
events of a remote future, and the destinies of kingdoms not yet ex- 
isting, are predicted in the most exact and definite manner, including 
even the enumeration of times. This shows vaticinia post eventum. 

According to the objection before us, the artificially poetical form 
of the prophecies evinces nothing more than past events and vague 
forebodings of the future put into that shape. 

It must be admitted that the prophecies of Daniel are more 
definite and detailed than any in the Old Testament. In like 
manner they have more chronological statements. A precision and 
particularity of description mark them as peculiar. The future is 
indicated in clearer and minuter lines than elsewhere. Yet it is 
not a mere book of history, describing the time from the overthrow 
of the Persian dynasty to Antiochus Epiphanes, as Porphyry 
asserted. The idea of Biblical prophecy is not wanting in it. 
Setting out from the relations and necessities of the present, per- 
vaded by the fundamental conception of the kingdom of God in 
conflict with the kingdoms of the world, and victorious over them, 
the book unfolds this contest according to its progressive gradation 
in more special details, till the final triumph of the spiritual ; reach- 
ing far beyond the time of Antiochus, even to the resurrection of 
the dead at the end of days. The definiteness of the predictions, in 
chronological as well as other details, differs from other Biblical pro- 
phecies not in essence but degree. Other prophetic books contain 
definite and precise predictions of events in the remote future. 
Thus we may refer to the prophecy of Micah (v. 1.) relating to the 
Messiah, and specifying the little village of Bethlehem as his birth- 
place. Of the same nature is the prophecy in Isaiah xxxix. 5 — 7., 
as well as that respecting the siege and capture of Babylon in 
Jeremiah 1. li. In like manner Isaiah announces to Hezekiah that 
he should live fifteen years longer (Isa. xxxviii. 5.); Jeremiah tells 
the false prophet Hananiah that he should die within a year. (Jer. 
xxviii. 16, 17.) The same prophet foretels the continuance of 
the captivity seventy years. The prophecies of Daniel, therefore, 
differ from others not so much in essence as in degree. In definite- 
ness of detail and minute precision, they exceed all that preceded. 
This must be explained partly by the singular position of Daniel, 
who was set in opposition to the heathen predictions of oriental 
Avisdom ; and partly by the special wants of the covenant-people, to 
whom, during the silence of the prophetic voice in future times, his 
prophecies were meant to furnish a satisfactory and compensative 
inheritance. 

8. The doctrinal and ethical character of the book is appealed to in 

favour of a late origin. The view of angels presented is alleged to be 

of later and foreign growth. In like manner the Christology shows 

a similar origin. The ethics and asceticism confirm the supposition. 

With regard to the angelology (iv. 13., ix. 21., x. 13. 21.), it cer- 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 93 1 

tainly agrees with the notices of angels contained in the earlier 
writings of the Old Testament ; where there are such preparatory- 
hints and allusions as coincide with the more developed form of the 
doctrine in Daniel. Thus the angel-princes mentioned in x. 13. 20., 
xii. 21., are shadowed forth in the captain of the Lord's host spoken of 
in Joshua v. 14., and in the seraphim of Isaiah vi. 2. The doctrine 
of guardian spirits belonging to empires appears to be intimated in 
Isaiah xxiv. 21. And it is plain that what is stated here regarding 
angels has a close relationship to the prophecies of Ezekiel and Zech- 
ariah. (Comp. x. 5. with Ezek. ix. and x. ; vii. 9. with Ezek. i. 26., 
Zech. i. — vi.) Nor is there any proof that the development of the 
doctrine respecting angels here taught, was influenced by Parsism, 
as is asserted by Bertholdt. The doctrine of Zoroaster was known 
long before Darius Hystaspes ; for it has been proved by Faucher, 
Tychsen, and Heeren, that Zoroaster lived at the latest under Cyax- 
ares I. ; and besides, there is no reference to the seven Amschaspands 
of Zoroaster in iv. 13., viii. 16., ix. 21. 23., x. 13., xii. 5. &c. It is not 
till the book of Tobit that we find an angel who is called one of the 
seven surrounding the throne of God. (Tobit xii. 15.) The peculiar 
development of the doctrine of angels exhibited in Ezekiel, Zechariah, 
and Daniel, so far from having been moulded by the influence of 
Parsism upon Judaism, is owing to the prevalence of vision, which 
embodies spiritual ideas in living and speaking forms. The angel 
Raphael in the book of Tobit is introduced into the visible outwai'd 
world ; showing that the ideas respecting guardian spirits, then cur- 
rent, had taken root in the popular faith, whence they were trans- 
ferred to the book of Tobit by the writer. The other apocryphal 
works contain scarcely a trace of angelology. 

The Christology of Daniel (vii. 13. &c, xii. 1 — 3.) does not contra- 
dict the Daniel-authorship. What is there remarkable in the Messiah 
being depicted as a super-earthly being, or as bearing a close relation 
to the resurrection of the dead ? Was this unknown to the time of 
Daniel, as Bertholdt asserts ? The prophet Micah predicted a Mes- 
siah, whose origin is from eternity (v. 1.) ; and the idea of the resur- 
rection of the body is not new, since it is in Isaiah xxvi. 1 9. Besides, 
in Isaiah ix. 6. the Messiah is represented both as God and man, a 
heavenly person furnished with divine power and glory. Thus there 
are germs, at least, of the doctrines in question in some earlier pro- 
phets. All that can be truly said is, that they are developed in the 
book of Daniel. 

As to the ethical ideas supposed to savour of a later period, 
such as the importance attached to prayer, to fasting, to abstinence 
from certain kinds of food, we remark, that the efficacy of prayer 
(Dan. ii. 18., vi. 11., ix. 3., x. 2.) is equally prominent in the Psalms. 
The custom of praying three times a day (vi. 11.) is justified by 
Psalm lv. 18. as ancient. In like manner the custom of praying 
towards Jerusalem is ancient. (Comp. Psal. v. 7., cxxxviii. 2., xxviii. 
2. ; 1 Kings viii. 44.) The practice would not cease because the tem- 
ple was destroyed ; for the feelings of the heart would still prompt the 
same position. And it is a mere assumption to say with Bertholdt 

3 o 2 



932 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

that Daniel had a chamber appropriated to prayer, which was a 
modern Pharisaical invention. Nothing is said about a chamber 
exclusively devoted to devotional purposes. Frequent fasting was 
practised in the time of the exile, as we learn from Ezra viii. 21. &c, 
ix. 3. &c. ; Neh. i. 4., ix. 1. ; Zech. vii. 3., viii. 19. So also 
abstinence from unclean food (Dan. i. 8. &c.) accords with Hosea ix. 
3, 4. ; Ezek. xxii. 26., xliv. 23., xxxiii. 25. The word njftV in iv. 24., 
upon which so much stress is laid, as if great merit were ascribed to 
almsgiving, properly means righteousness, and is so translated here by 
Stuart; in which case the objection falls to the ground, and the 
comparison instituted between the verse and Tobit iv. 10., xii. 9., is 
annihilated. 1 

On the whole, it will be found that neither the doctrinal nor the 
ethical ideas of the book are such as betray their origin in the Mac- 
cabean times. Both agree with the older canonical literature of the 
ancient economy ; whereas the later apocryphal writings of the Jews, 
though derived in part from the canonical documents, depart from 
them in many things, and are even contradictory in some. Occa- 
sionally the genuine ideas contained in the canonical lie undeveloped 
as far as the apocryphal literature is concerned ; of which an example 
is furnished by the conception of Messiah — a personal Messiah being 
unknown to the apocryphal writings ; at other times, the genuine 
ideas of the old Jewish Scriptures have been unfolded under the in- 
fluence of a superstitious popular belief, as is seen in Tobit xii. 9., 
where undue efficacy is attributed to alms. 

Other objections which have been urged against the authenticity 
of the book are now abandoned, or they are undeserving of notice by 
the side of such as have been considered. Whatever difficulties 
stand in the way of the book's reception into the canon as a true 
work, fully deserving that position, — and we freely concede the exist- 
ence of such difficulties, even after the good service done by Heng- 
stenberg, Havernick, and Oehler, in attempting to resolve them, — we 
believe that far greater and more intractable ones lie in the way of 
thinking that it originated at the Maccabean period. Certainly the 
contrast between the contents of the book and all the memorials un- 
doubtedly originating at that late time, is strikingly manifest. The 
feeling among the people of Israel, during those troublous times 
was, that they had been forsaken of God. His wonderful works 
were no more wrought on their behalf. The spirit of the nation was 
sunk in all but hopelessness, being conscious of the glory having 
departed. But here we meet with wonders on a gigantic scale, 
showing the mighty arm of Jehovah uplifted on behalf of his ser- 
vants. Visions presenting grotesque figures of colossal structure are 
described. Prophecies, too, relating to the empires of the world, 
stand forth in imposing array, manifesting the presence of the same 
spirit which wrought in the gifted teachers of an older period. How 
improbable is it also, that a Jew of the Maccabean time should have 
had so minute a knowledge of the persons and circumstances belonging 

1 See Havemick's neue Kritische Untersuchungen, p. 32. et seqq., and Oehler in 
riiolnck's litterarischer Auzeiger for 1842, p. 388. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 933 

to the Babvlonian and* Persian empires ! The details are varied and 
abundant, exhibiting an unusual acquaintance with the great empires 
of the East. Tradition could scarcely have supplied information of 
this diversified and exact kind ; as may be seen by a comparison of 
the apocryphal books, where the knowledge of Babylonia and interior 
Asia is superficial, scanty, and inaccurate. 

The contents, form, and spirit, axe foreign, as far as we can judge, 
to Maccctbean Judaism. This is obvious to any one who will 
consider the likeliest conceivable object with which the book could 
have been composed at the time assigned to it. The most probable 
purpose which a later author could have had in composing it, was to 
exhort and encourage the Jews, groaning under the persecutions of 
Antiochus, to steadfastness. In the first part, he meant perhaps to 
show the miserable end of the oppressors of God's people by the 
example of Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar ; and in contrast, the 
remarkable preservation of Jehovah's faithful servants, by the example 
of Daniel and his companions. In the second part, he meant to cherish 
the hope that the dominion of him who oppressed the Jewish people 
was near its termination; since the wished-for deliverer, who was to 
obtain the victory on behalf of the people and worship of God, would 
shortly appear. Such is the tendency of the book, according to Ge- 
senius, Bleek, and De Wette, — one far more probable than either 
the hypothesis of Bertholdt, or that of Griesinger. Let us examine 
it more closely. 

The historical portion of the work was not adapted to give the 
encouragement and consolation to the people which they required. 
The author knew the forgery, and therefore the book could afford no 
comfort to himself. Nor could it do so to the people. They were 
suffering most severely under oppression ; thousands had been mur- 
dered, and thousands were scattered throughout the land in. misery ; 
the sanctuary was defiled ; the nation appeared almost on the verge 
of extinction. In such circumstances, could a few leaves dispersed 
among the people, containing the narrative of Daniel delivered from 
the den of lions, and of three youths snatched from a fiery furnace, 
400 years before, make any salutary impression upon the unfortunate 
Jews ? Could a sensible Israelite believe that several floating leaves, 
having a fictitious story upon them, would produce the effect which 
the writer is supposed to have intended? Surely the well-known 
and genuine history of the people, as presented in the sacred books, 
contained far more appropriate examples. In relation to the first, or 
historical part of the book, it is assumed that the reader must at once 
have thought of Antiochus Epiphanes, when his attention was turned 
to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, the persecutors of the Jews. This 
may be gravely doubted. Both were dissimilar in relation to their 
hatred and persecution of the Jews. Antiochus persecuted the Jews 
because of their faith, tried to extirpate them utterly, and madly 
desecrated all that was most sacred in their view. But Nebuchad- 
nezzar carefully educated four Jewish youths in the palace, treated 
them with respect, honoured them with distinctions and rewards, 
putting them into important posts and offices, and acknowledged that 

3 O 3 



934 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

the God of the Jews was the God of gods. Nebuchadnezzar recovered 
the use of his reason; Antiochus died in his madness. So also 
Belshazzar was not a persecutor of the Jews. It is true that, on 
the night of his great feast, he profaned the holy vessels ; but 
this was not done out of hatred to the Jews ; for Daniel was sent 
for to interpret the mysterious writing, and was rewarded with an 
important place in the kingdom. Thus, neither the one king nor the 
other was calculated to portray to the eye of the reader Antiochus 
Epiphanes. Nor is the prophetic portion of the book well fitted to 
effect the object assumed, viz. to strengthen struggling contem- 
poraries with the hope of the tyrant being soon punished. The 
visions are too obscure for this purpose. The 7th, 8th, and 12th 
chapters are suitable more or less ; but yet the visions are shut 
up with the announcement of the holy place being purified, and 
those only are pronounced happy who should see the end, at which 
time the dead should rise, and the dominion over all kingdoms be 
given to the saints. According to the negative critics, the author 
wrote his book after the appearance of the things announced in the 
visions, i.e. after Judas had conquered the Syrian general Lycias, 
and re-dedicated the temple ; while the notices of time in Dan. viii. 
14., xii. 11. j and the passages viii. 15., xi. 45. must be later than the 
death of Antiochus. But surely the Jews did not then need conso- 
lation. The victory was won, and the temple-worship restored. And 
how could an Israelite, immediately after the death of Antiochus, 
write, that when the theocracy should be restored, the dead should 
rise, and all kingdoms of the world be given over to the Israelites ; 
since there was not the slightest symptom of such events ? * 

In whatever light we regard the prophetic book before us, the 
difficulties of accounting for its origin in the Maccabean period are 
infinitely greater than any which lie against the Daniel-authorship. 
The writer at that late time must have possessed some wonderful 
influence to induce the Jews to reopen the closed canon and insert 
his supposititious production. They felt that the spirit of prophecy 
in the nation had degenerated and died ; but here all at once bursts 
forth a striking prophetic work, surpassing, in various respects, any 
that had preceded it. Unusually credulous they must have been to 
give it a place among their holy writings. Had Daniel lived in 
Palestine we should have suspected the authenticity of the work. 
But as he was brought up at Babylon, and spent his life there, the 
miracles and visions connected with his person are in harmony with 
the place and the empire. He stood as the representative of the 
theocracy amid circumstances which naturally led to a delineation of 
the worldly powers opposed to the divine kingdom, and to their an- 
nihilation in its presence. 

A question now remains, whether Daniel himself put the book ne 
wrote into its present form. It is probable he did not. Some of 
his countrymen put the prophecies together and prefixed introductory 
notices respecting the author's person. What leads to this conclusion 

1 See Herbst's Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 97. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 935 

is the existence of various particulars, here and there, indicating 
another hand, such as mention of peculiar excellencies belonging to 
Daniel (i. 19, 20., vi. 4.), which could scarcely have proceeded from 
himself, as they are unnecessary laudations in the places they occupy; 
and the chronological oversight ini. 1. We have already seen that the 
solutions of this difficulty which have been proposed are untenable. 
Herbst conjectures that the person who prefixed this notice con- 
nected the fact related by Berosus, that Nebuchadnezzar's generals 
on their first march into Egypt carried off with them youths of dis- 
tinction, with the captivity of Jehoiakim, through misapprehension 
of 2 Kings xxiv. I. 1 

The Greek translator of Daniel has taken great liberties with the 
text, as is well known. Indeed he has arbitrarily remodelled the 
book, disfiguring it in a way which shows the prevailing taste of the 
Alexandrian Jews, and the unscrnpulousness of their hermeneutic 
doings. In consecpience of this arbitrary procedure on the part of 
the translator, and perhaps others besides who had to do with the 
formation of the version, the later version of Theodotion became 
much more general than the Alexandrian one, in the old church. 
Even in the second century it had almost supplanted the latter. In 
the time of Jerome, Theodotion was read in nearly all churches ; and 
that father declares his ignorance of the reasons which had induced 
the Alexandrian to be laid aside. For a long time it was thought 
that the latter had been lost, till it was discovered at Rome, in the 
Codex Chisianus, in the eighteenth century. It was published by 
Simon de Magistris, at Rome, in 1772; afterwards by Michaelis 
twice at Gottingen; then by Segaar at Utrecht, 1775; and latterlv 
by Halm at Leipzig, 1845. 

Whenever this Greek translation adhei'es to the Hebrew text it is 
pervaded by an endeavour to attain beauty and purity of expression. 
Usually? however, it departs widely from the original. When com- 
pared with the Hebrew, the text is very different. Sometimes the 
Greek has considerable additions, as at iii. 24. &c, where the prayer 
of Asarias is inserted; and iii. 51. &c, where the song of the three 
men in the fiery furnace is given. Sometimes we find considerable 
omissions and abbreviations, as in iii. 31 — 34., iv. 3 — 6., v. 17 — 25. 
28. Other departures occur in iii. 46 — 50., iv. 28. &c, v. 1 — 3. 
and vi. Individual expressions and sentences are altered in i. 3. 11. 
16., ii. 8. 11. 28. &c, vii. 6. 8., ix. 25. 27. 

To account for these variations it has been supposed that the 
Chaldee or Hebrew text has undergone various elaborations from dif- 
ferent later hands, because, on comparing Greek words in the addi- 
tions with Chaldee equivalents, traces have been discovered of their 
Chaldee original. 2 But the alleged mistakes in translation can 
scarcely prove an Aramaean original. It is more probable that the 
translator himself is chargeable with the smaller and larger deviations, 
because design may be detected in them. They were meant to 
render the narratives clearer, to introduce a better connection into 

1 See Herbsts Einleitung, vol. ii. § 34. p. 104. et seqq. 

2 See Eichhorn's Einleihir.g, vol. iv. § G17. 



936 Introduction to the Old Testament, 

them, to soften what appeared to be exaggerated, and to make the 
description of miraculous occurrences more vivid and intelligible. 
Examples may be seen in iii. 23. &c. compared with the LXX. 
iii. 49. &c, 91.; iii. 31—33. compared with LXX. iv. 1. 3, 4. See 
also ii. 5., iii. I. 1 

The principal additions are three, viz. 1. what is called "The Song 
of the three holy Children," inserted in the third chapter, between 
the 23rd and 24th verses. More properly the piece consists of a 
prayer, in which the three men who had been thrown into the fiery 
furnace ask God to deliver them and put their enemies to shame 
(1 — 21.); a brief notice of the fact that, notwithstanding the terrible 
flame which consumed the Chaldeans who were about the furnace, 
the angel of the Lord protected the three from all harm (22 — 26.) ; 
and a song of praise to God from the three together. (27 — 67.) 
2. The history of Susanna. 3. The history of the destruction of 
Bel and the Dragon. 

The position of the first piece in the Codex Alexandrinus is after 
the Psalms, as Hymn ix. and x. This was not an uncommon place in 
Psalters. Indeed, it has been thought by Fritzsche 2 that the hymns 
were so arranged in the old Latin version, since they are found in 
that order in various MS. Psalters and a printed copy also. It was 
their liturgical use that caused this transposition. They often form a 
part of Liturgies, on which account they were both abridged and 
enlarged. The most natural place is the one it usually occupies, 
after iii. 23. The position of the second piece, which has various 
insci'iptions, such as Susanna, Daniel, the judgment (hia/cpio-is) of 
Daniel, &c. is commonly in MSS. before the first chapter of Daniel. 
Accordingly in the old Latin and Arabic it is so placed. But the 
LXX., Vulgate, Complutensian Polyglott, Hexaplar Syriac, place 
it at the end, as the 13th chapter of Daniel. The third piece is added 
as the 14th chapter of Daniel by the LXX. 

Were these additions inserted or appended by the translators 
themselves ? It is obvious that Theodotion himself put them into his 
version, since they coincide exactly with its character. All that he 
did was to revise the text of the LXX. in his own way, as has been 
shown by Fritzsche. 3 It is more difficult to decide whether they 
were introduced into the Septuagint at first. What renders it highly 
probable that the translator himself placed them in his work is their 
agreement even to minute particulars with the version itself. The 
manner is the same. Whether he took what already existed, ela- 
borating it perhaps in his own way ; or whether he composed it 
himself, is not very clear. It is likely that he did not compose the 
pieces himself. This is favoured by the abrupt nature of the first, 
as well as the inscription of the third piece. He took traditional 
stories already in writing, and revised them in his own way. 

Some have thought that the prayer of Asarias, and the song of the 
three children, proceeded from different authors, because of the con- 

1 Com p. Hiivernick's Commeutar ueber das Buch Daniel, Einleitung, p. xlvii. et seqq. 

2 Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apokryphen, i. p. 112. 3 Ibid. p. 114. 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel. 937 

tradiction between verse 14., according to which the temple and its 
worship no longer exist, and verses 30, 31. 61, 62. where both are 
mentioned as existing. So Havernick and De Wette think. But 
may not the writer have slipped in the part he assumed ? Forgetting 
himself in the 14th verse, he goes on in the loth to complain that 
there is no longer a prophet in the nation ; a complaint which suits 
his own time, but not a time when the temple and its worship did not 
exist. Theodotion too does not appear to have remarked the dis- 
crepancy ; at least he allows it to remain. The style of both pieces 
is the same. Hence it is probable that they were written by one and 
the same person. 

Some have thought that the original text of this first piece was 
Hebrew or Aramaean, because of its strong Hebraisms (comp. verses 
8. 11. 13. 16. 19, 20.). Scholz 1 asserts that there can be no doubt of 
this ; arguing in favour of its having been composed in Hebrew, be- 
cause the names Ananias, Asarias, and Misael are Hebrew ; and 
because the words Spoaos, -v/ru^o? occur twice, &c. &c. (verses 41. 45. 
44. 48.). But the Hebrew names prove no more than that the 
Jewish author knew the true appellations of the three ; and the two 
Greek words mentioned stand in a different connection each time. 
Surely a Hellenist, or Greek-speaking Jew, whose education and 
style had been formed in a great measure by the Septuagint, could 
write in this manner. His diction must be Hebraised. Hence we 
hold the Greek to be the original, as Fritzsche also believes. Theo- 
dotion's text of this piece is merely a copy of the LXX. a little 
altered. The alterations have been made at different times ; and the 
text is throughout a mixed one. A tabular view of their variations is 
given by Eichhorn. 2 

It is instructive to compare the ancient versions of this piece, 
such as the old Latin and Vulgate, which are literal, and have 
been made from Theodotion's text. The Arabic in the London 
Polyglott is still more literal, taken from the same source. So also 
the Syriac in the Polyglott is from Theodotion ; though it differs 
from the rest in being free. The Syriac translation published by 
Bugati is from the Hexaplar LXX. 

With regard to the second piece, i. e. the history of Susanna, it 
was debated very early whether the narrative be a pm-ely historical 
one or not. Julius Africanus advanced several well-founded objec- 
tions to it, to which Origen replied. We do not approve of some 
things stated against the truth of the history by Africanus ; though 
Origen did not satisfactorily answer them. Certainly the best argu- 
ments were on the side of Africanus ; as may be seen even in the 
brief summary of the controversy given by Fritzsche. 3 After the 
lapse of many centuries the suspicions and doubts of Africanus were 
resumed with new additions by Protestants ; Roman Catholics adopt- 
ing the apologetic tone, like Origen. Thus after Eichhorn and Ber- 
tholdt had opened up in modern times the true critical method of 

1 Einleitiing in die heiligen Schriften, u. s. w. vol. iii. p. 520. et seq. 

2 Einleitung in die Apokryphischen Schriften, p. 422. et seqq. 

3 Exeget. Handbuch, vol. i. p. 116. et seq. 



938 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

dealing with the production, Moulinie and Scholz, without tact and 
taste, appeared as apologists. 

It is evident that the production does not present a true history. 
The marvellous is of a kind to evince the aim of the writer. Even in 
the places where both texts agree, the difficulties in the way of sup- 
posing it a real history are great. But is it a mere fabrication or 
fable, as Eichhorn supposes ? Or is it a parable, as Jahn makes it ? 
Eichhorn adduces the moral of the story in the LXX., verses 63. 
and 64. " Therefore were the young men favourites with the pos- 
terity of Jacob on account of their simplicity. And let us esteem as 
sons young men of distinguished birth. For such show their piety, 
and will ever haA r e a spirit of knowledge and understanding." This 
moral is wanting in Theodotion, and instead of it we read " From that 
day forth was Daniel had in great reputation in the sight of the people" 
(verse 64.). Both are reflections of the writer and reviser, showing 
that they looked upon the history as true. Indeed Eichhorn admits 
that, according to the copy which bears Theodotion's name, it was meant 
to be received as a fragment of true history. We see nothing how- 
ever in either text against the supposition that some truth lies at the 
basis. A traditional story furnished the writer with the materials. 
But Daniel had nothing to do with the facts related. He has been 
arbitrarily brought into connection with them by the writer. Had 
he been really concerned in the transaction, he must have occupied a 
different position in the narrative. We believe that a story substan- 
tially true has been dressed out with fabulous traits. The foundation 
at least has all the marks of verisimilitude. 

The original of the piece was Greek, as the diction shows. The 
Hebraisms are such as proceed from a Hellenist ; no mistake of trans- 
lation can be pointed out ; and there is not the least impropriety in 
the adaptation of one language to another. The paronomasias (see 
verses 54, 55. 58, 59.) could not have come from a translator; and 
Scholz's hypothesis to account for them in conformity with their 
having been a translator's work 1 , is entirely arbitrary. 

The text of Theodotion differs from that of the LXX. It is a 
revised form of the latter. Theodotion has given greater concinnity 
and probability to the narrative, enlarging and altering it in different 
ways. Most of these deviations have been collected by Eichhorn. 2 
Though there are many Greek MSS. of Theodotion, the text in all 
is a mixed one. 

The old Latin version taken from Theodotion's text follows the 
original very literally. In like manner the Vulgate and Arabic are 
closely rendered from it. There are also three Syriac versions of 
the same text, viz. that in the London Polyglott, which has not the 
name of the translator ; the second, printed in the same work, usually 
called the Philoxenian Syriac, from the bishop of Harclea(A. d. 616); 
and a third, still imprinted, except six verses from James of Edessa. 
The first two treat the text freely, altering and enlarging it at times, 
each in its own way. But the Greek text had been already moulded 

1 Einleit. vol. iii. p. 523. 2 Einleit. p. 457. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Daniel 939 

in various ways when they used it. The Philoxenian translator took 
greater liberties than the other, omitting and adding more particulars. 
Bugati, who printed the first six verses of the third, has observed that 
it follows for the most part the Peshito version. 1 Sometimes, how- 
ever, it forsakes it even in remarkable places. Probably the trans- 
lator merely revised the Peshito, altering it here and there after the 
Greek. The Syriac version published by Bugati follows its original, 
the Hexaplar text, very closely. 

With regard to the third piece, viz. the history of the destruction 
of Bel and the Dragon, the character of the story is legendary and 
fabulous. It is a fact that the temple of Belus was destroyed in 
the time of Alexander the Great ; for he wished to rebuild it : 
but it is not credible, as here related, that Daniel destroyed it ; 
since we learn from Strabo and Arrian that Xerxes did so. The 
LXX. leave the time of its destruction undetermined ; but Theo- 
dotion refers it to the time of Cyrus. It is a mere assumption 
of Scholz's that Xerxes completed what Daniel began. 2 What is 
said of the worship of living serpents in Babylon, is without war- 
rant in ancient history. Scholz indeed refers to Diodorus Siculus, 
ii. 9., who speaks of large silver serpents which the obelisk of Rhea 
in the temple of Belus had beside it. 3 But this does not show the 
worship of living animals ; nor can the one be legitimately inferred 
from the other. 

We do not think that the story has a true historical basis. It 
seems to be mere fiction. What led to it, was the sixth chapter of 
Daniel's book. The design was to show that Jehovah is a great and 
powerful God who miraculously preserves his faithful servants, in 
contrast with the falsehood and deception of idolatry. The type is 
plain in the book of Daniel ; but the copy far exceeds the original in 
the prominence it gives to all that can contribute to the main design 
of the piece. There is an inscription to it in the LXX., viz. " Out 
of the prophecy of Habakkuk, son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi." 
This shows that it was regarded as a prophecy proceeding from 
Habakkuk, and written by him, agreeing in this point with the text 
of the LXX., in which Daniel is adduced as a priest and one not 
well known. As Theodotion revised the piece with the view of 
appending it to Daniel, he omitted the inscription. 

The original of it was Greek, like that of the other additions , for 
although it is Hebraising, it agrees with the language of a Hellenist. 
The Greek text of Theodotion in the MSS. is a mixed one which 
has been repeatedly affected by that of the LXX. It has improved 
the story in various ways ; as Eichhorn has shown by a careful colla- 
tion of the differences existing between them. 4 

The Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic versions follow Theodotion, with 
a few variations. They are literal, especially the Arabic. The 
Syriac published by Bugati is from the Hexaplar text of the LXX. 



1 See Daniel secundum editionem LXX. interpretum ex tetraplis desumptam, &c, 
pp. 157, 153. 

" Einleit. vol. iii. p. 526. 3 Ibid. 4 Einleit:. p. 436. et seqq. 



940 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

It remains for us to speak of the time and place at which these addi- 
tions to Daniel originated. Speaking of them as found in the LXX., 
it is not very clear that they were known to Josephus. The passage 
in his Antiquities x. 11. 7., to which some appeal, does not prove his 
acquaintance with them ; though it is probable that they were not 
unknown to the Jewish historian who made so great use of the Sep- 
tuagint. The first mention of Susanna is in Ignatius's epistle to the 
Magnesians ; and in the second epistle of the Roman Clement. But 
they must have been composed earlier, either in the second or first 
century before Christ. At that time the Hellenists in Egypt culti- 
vated literature and philosophy ; where there is little doubt that 
these pieces originated. It is true that the Jews elsewhere did not 
receive them as authentic, and rejected them as uninspired. But 
the productions were current notwithstanding ; and were believed by 
many. Tradition also dressed them out with additional particulars, 
and translated them into Arameean ; of which some remains have 
been pointed out by Delitzsch. 1 A knowledge of them extended 
even to the Mohammedans ; at least the wonderful manner in which 
Daniel was fed Avas known to them. 

The additions under consideration were circulated among the 
Fathers in various versions, where they accompanied the canonical 
Daniel, and came into ecclesiastical use. It is pretty clear that they 
were regarded as genuine history, and considered in consequence as 
of equal authority with the canonical writings. The way in which 
Origen argues against Africanus shows the position assigned to them 
by the orthodox. But the suspicions of Africanus were not without 
effect ; and most of the Fathers were afterwards induced to separate 
the additions from the canonical portion of Daniel's book. Yet they 
still commented upon them, and used them in homilies. Some, how- 
ever, rejected them, as Apollinaris and Eusebius. The cautious way 
in which Jerome speaks of them, and the place he gave them in his 
translation, show his private opinion to have been unfavourable. 
" Daniel, as received among the Hebrews, contains neither the 
History of Susanna, nor the Hymn of the Three Children, nor the 
fable of Bel and the Dragon, all which, as they are dispersed through- 
out the world, we have added, lest to the ignorant we should seem 
to have cut off a considerable part of the book, transfixing them at 
the same time with a dagger." 2 It is idle to affirm with Alber that 
Jerome used the word fabula here in a good sense, meaning a true 
narrative ; the context shows the reverse, for he is speaking of apo- 
cryphal fabules in contrast with the canonical Scriptures. Rufinus, 
Jerome's opponent, was on the orthodox side. Theodoret has ex- 
plained the Hymn of the three young men ; but passed by the history 
of Susanna, and of Bel and the Dragon. The church of Rome allows 
them to be of equal authority with the rest of the book of Daniel, by 
a decree of the council of Trent, giving them an equal place in the 

1 See his Habacuci prophetae vita at que setate, p. 31. etseqq. 

2 Procem. in Daniel. 



On the Book of the Prophet Rosea. 941 

canonical Scriptures. The Protestant churches have justly excluded 
them from the canonical, and classed them among the apocryphal, 
writings ; though the Anglican and Lutheran churches properly 
read them for instruction, and so do not debar their ecclesiastical 
use. 



CHAP. XXIII. 

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET HOSEA. 



Hosea was the son of Beeri, an unknown citizen of the kingdom 
of Israel. Some rabbins have confounded the father with Beerah, a 
Reubenite prince who was carried away by Tiglath-pileser (1 Chron. 
v. 6.). But the names and persons are quite different. The tradi- 
tional accounts which speak of him as being born at Belemoth in the 
tribe of Issachar *, are quite uncertain ; and it is most probable that 
he belonged to the kingdom of Israel ; not to Judah, as Jahn and 
Maurer argue. The sending of a prophet out of Judah into the 
kingdom of the ten tribes would be an extraordinary thing ; the only 
cnses of the kind on record being those in Amos vii. and 1 Kings 
xiii. At all events, it must have been expressly mentioned. His 
Israelitish origin is attested by the peculiar, rough, Aramaising dic- 
tion, pointing to the northern part of Palestine ; by the intimate 
acquaintance he evinces with the localities of Ephraim (v. 1., vi. 8, 
9., xii. 12., xiv. 6. &c.); by passages like i. 2., where the kingdom 
is styled the land; and vii. 5., where the Israelitish king is designated 
as our king. All that has been advanced in favour of his being 
of Judah by Jahn and Maurer, has been satisfactorily answered by 
Havernick and Simson. 

According to the superscription, Hosea prophesied under Uzziah, 
Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, and Jeroboam II., 
king of Israel. This period is computed by Keil 2 at sixty-five 
years. Pvosenmiiller 3 , however, shortens it to forty ; and Stuck to 
fifty-five. 4 So long a duration of office as sixty-five, or even sixty 
years, is quite improbable. But we cannot agree with Movers that 
the prophet did not live under Ahaz, and therefore not till Hezekiah 's 
reign ; for Knobel has clearly shown 5 that in various passages the 
condition of the kingdom of Judah- under Ahaz is described (v. 13.). 
The mention of Hezekiah in the inscription is in all probability 
incorrect. The passage i. 4. must have been written before the 
death of Jeroboam II. Accordingly, we may take either the last 
year, or last but one of Jeroboam, as the commencement, i. e. 784 or 

1 See Simson's Der Prophet Hosea erkliirt, u. s. w. p. 1. et seqq. 

2 Einleit. p. 317. 3 Scholia, p. 27. 

* Hoseas prophcta, &c. p. 5. 5 Prophetisraus, vol. ii. p. 158. 



942 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

785 B.C., and perhaps 740 B.C. as the close, leaving forty-five years 
for the duration of his prophetic office. There is good reason for 
doubting the authenticity of the superscription. It seems to have 
been interpolated by a later hand, from Isaiah i. 1. Hitzig, Ewald, 
and Simson, have proved its spuriousness by considerations which. 
Havernick has vainly endeavoured to set aside. 1 The only part of 
it, however, that seems erroneous, is the name of Hezekiah. The 
remainder is confirmed by internal evidence. There is no correct- 
ness in Eadie's allegation, that " the first and second verses of the 
prophecy are so closely connected in the structure of the language 
and style of the narration, that the second verse itself would become 
suspicious if the first were reckoned a spurious addition." 2 The 
only argument in favour of the truth of Hezekiah in the title is 
derived from x. 14., where it is supposed that there is an allusion to 
an expedition of Shalmaneser against Hoshea, which took place soon 
after Hezekiah began to reign. Hence it is inferred, that Hosea 
lived and prophesied near the same time. But it is very uncertain 
whether ]v?& (x. 14.), Shalman, be king Shalmaneser. Rather was 
he an unknown Assyrian king. The town or city Beth-arbel, men- 
tioned in the same verse, is Arbela in Galilee, according to Gesenius, 
Rosenmuller, Maurer, Havernick, and De Wette. We prefer taking 
it to be Arbela on the Tigris, as Ewald does. 

The prophecies of Hosea refer principally to the kingdom of 
Ephraim or Israel ; Judah being alluded to only incidentally. This 
will be apparent from i. 7., ii. 2., iv. 15., v. 5. 10. 14., vi. 4. 11,, viii. 
14., x. 11., xii. 1. 3.; and therefore Horsley's opinion is incorrect, 
when he affirms "it has been the occasion of much misinterpretation 
to suppose that his prophecies are almost wholly against the kingdom 
of Israel." 3 

The book may be most conveniently distributed into two divisions ; 
the first, containing the first three chapters ; the second, the re- 
maining eleven. The former exhibits symbolical representations, 
and appears to belong to the first part of Hosea's prophetic course, 
his ministry under Jeroboam, when the judgments of God were 
impending over the nation. 

The nature and meaning of the transactions recorded in the first 
and third chapters has been much debated. When the prophet was 
commanded to " go and take a wife of whoredoms and children of 
whoredoms," &c. &c. (i. 2.) ; and again, to " go yet, love a woman 
beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress," &c. (iii. 1.), was he enjoined 
to do these things really and literally ? Was he ordered actually to 
enter into such connubial alliance ? Such as have not studied the 
subject of Old Testament prophetism will naturally adopt this sense 
as the most obvious one ; for it presents itself first to the reader. 
They will think that the prophet was plainly commanded to go and 
do a certain thing ; that he obeyed the command, and the usual 
consequences followed. Among the Fathers, this hypothesis was 

1 Einleit. ii. 2. p. 281. - Article Hosea, in Kitto's Cyclopaedia. 

3 Theological works, vol. vii. p. 236. 



On the Book of the Prophet Hosea. 943 

adopted by Theodoret, Cyril of Alexandria, and Augustine ; by 
most interpreters of the Lutheran church ; by Manger, of the Re- 
formed church; as well as by Stuck, Horsley, and Drake. Hofmann, 
in recent times, has also advocated it. But there are various reasons 
for rejecting the view in question. Hence others have assumed a 
parabolic representation, denying an actual thing, either external or 
internal. The prophet was enjoined to go and prophesy in this 
manner, as if he were commanded to do as related. This is the 
view of Calvin, the Chaldee paraphrast, Bauer, Rosenmuller, &c. 
It is a sort of modification of the same opinion, when Luther sup- 
poses that the prophet performed a kind of drama in view of the 
people. 

Others, again, assume that the prophet describes real things, but 
inivard rather than outward. Jerome, Origen (as may be inferred 
from Rufinus's testimony), Maimonides, Abenezra, Kimchi, Marck, 
and Hengstenberg, have supported the view in question. The last- 
named author is its ablest advocate, on whom such scholars as Ha- 
vernick and Keil rely. It would not be easy indeed to refute the 
arguments of Hengstenberg. Difficulties multiply on every side 
when any other view than his is assumed. We cannot suppose that 
God commanded the prophet when entering upon his office to do 
something which was contrary to His own law, and which must have 
hindered the efficiency of it. The meaning of various parts of the 
third chapter is also involved in great confusion, on any other as- 
sumption than that of an internal transaction, especially the first 
verse, for the type and the thing typified will not correspond. And 
the children mentioned in the first chapter, which were begotten in 
adultery, and therefore could not be considered the prophet's, contra- 
dict the idea of correspondence between the figure and the thing 
represented. Bssides, several years must have been required for 
the completion of the external transactions recorded, weakening 
thereby the impressiveness of the symbol. Hence we must look 
upon the whole as spiritual and internal machinery, in the mind of 
the prophet himself. On any other supposition the difficulties seem 
insuperable ; as Hengstenberg has fully shown. 1 

The meaning of the phrases wife of whoredoms, and children of 
whoredoms, can hardly be mistaken, after the critical investigations 
of Hengstenberg and Hitzig. Unfaithfulness after marriage is in- 
tended. The children are the two sons and daughter born after 
tvcdlock. Hence, Mr. Drake is mistaken in supposing that " wife of 
whoredoms" refers to the general character of Gonier both before and 
after marriage ; as well as in saying that Hosea " was to take the 
harlot and her base-born children into his house." The children were 
not born till after marriage. 2 The adulteress referred to in iii. 1. is 
not the same woman as she who was the prophet's wife in i. 2, 3. 
The prophet in this transaction was symbolical. He meant to set 
forth certain truths to the people. Accordingly, the names of both 

1 Cbristologie, vol. iii. p. 1 6. et seqq. 

2 See Notes on the Prophecies of Jonah and Hosea, p. 48. 



944 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

mother and children are significant. She is called Gomer, Jinishing- 
stroke, or end, completion ; and her father is Diblain, i. e. double 
calamities. The names of the children are Jezreel, Lo-ruhamah, and 
Lo-ammi; which are explained in the book itself. The figure of 
marriage and adultery is common in the Old Testament, representing 
the relation between Jehovah and the Jewish people with the latte:r*s 
infidelity to their covenant. The nation is the spouse who violated 
her love-compact by falling into idolatry. "We do not think, with 
Horsley, that distinct parts of the nation were typified by the three 
children ; or with Hengstenberg, that wife and children, taken to- 
gether, are the people of Israel ; but that they refer to three succes- 
sive generations of the Israelites. 

The second division of the book, consisting of iv. — xiv., refers to 
the prophetic activity after the death of Jeroboam, when the judg- 
ments of" God upon the nation had already begun — to the threatenings 
and exhortations uttered by Hosea. Although this second part 
appears to form a connected whole, several attempts have been made 
by Maurer, Stuck, and Hitzig, to divide it into separate discourses, 
as well as to arrange and define such discourses chronologically. But 
the task is impossible. All is connected and consecutive, forbidding 
every such undertaking. The absence of any chronological index, 
of clear marks indicating the commencement and termination of sepa- 
rate pieces or discourses, as well as the systematic progression from 
wrath and threatening to promise and mercy, forbid all attempts of 
the kind. And if, with Ewald 1 , we could perceive a careful distri- 
bution of the whole into definite, clear, and equable strophes, there 
would be additional confirmation of this remark. But of such strophes, 
we cannot recognise the undoubted existence, except in the critic's 
own subjectivity. 

There is no reason for doubting the fact that Hosea himself ar- 
ranged the prophecies as they now are ; the first three chapters con- 
taining the substance of what he did and taught under Jeroboam ; 
the last eleven, a connected summary of his discourses during the 
interregnum after Jeroboam's death, and under the kings Zechariah, 
Shallum, and Menahem. The first part depicts the apostasy of Israel 
from Jehovah, and their punishment, with their future restoration 
and forgiveness ; the second is filled with denunciations, threatenings, 
exhortations, promises, and announcements of mercy. 

Ewald thinks that after Hosea had been long active in the northern 
kingdom, he came to Judah, and wrote his book there. 2 But for this, 
the considerations adduced are not sufficient proof. The brief notices 
of Judah (i. 7., iv. 15. &c.) do not show that the prophet became 
gradually acquainted with Judah, as Havernick and Simson justly 
observe. The prophet lived and wrote in Israel. His book must 
have been soon in Judah, because the kingdom of Israel continued but 
a short time after the work appeared ; and because Jeremiah has fre- 
quently used it in his representations of Israel. Hitzig and Havernick 
find allusions to Hosea in Isa. xxx. 1. (Hos. viii. 4.), and i. 23. 

1 Die Prophetcn des alten Buncles, vol. i. pp. 127, 128. 2 Ibid. p. 119. 



On the Book of the Prophet Hosea. 945 

(Hos. ix. 15.); but they are somewhat uncertain. Eedslob x is the 
only critic who has called in question the integrity of the book. The 
passage in vii. 4 — 10. he supposes, for the most part, made up of 
marginal glosses ; a very arbitrary hypothesis, which it was scarcely 
necessary for Havernick to refute. 

Hosea employs the simple prophetic discourse. He has no visions, 
parables, or allegories, and but two symbolical transactions, (i. 3.) 
The signification of the symbolical is given by him in unambiguous 
and plain description ; and he falls out of the symbolic into proper 
representation. His mode of presenting ideas is distinguished by 
vivid descriptions, which, however, are always brief; as well as by 
great wealth of comparisons and images. Frequently does he com- 
pare Jehovah to some of the lower animals, as the lion, panther, 
bear ; or to some sensible object, as the dew, the rain. (v. 12. 14., 
vi. 3., xi. 10., xiii. 7, 8., xiv. 6.) Paronomasias and plays on words 
occur in ii. 4. 18., iv. 15., viii. 7., xiii. 15. The style is peculiar. 
It is highly poetical and bold, lively and energetic, corresponding to 
the powerful ideas embodied. It is remarkable, howevei", that, 
among the many forcible images employed, there is so much tender- 
ness and softness. An elegiac plaintiveness is diffused throughout 
his writing. Jerome has observed that his style is laconic and sen- 
tentious. Lowth pronounces Hosea the most difficult and perplexed 
of the prophets. The reasons of this obscurity are not the antiquity 
of the composition, nor the assumed fact that we have now only a 
small volume of his remaining which contains his principal prophecies, 
and these extant in a continued series, with no marks of distinction 
as to the times when they were published, or of which they treat, 
as Lowth thinks 2 ; but the idiosyncrasy of the prophet, giving rise 
to peculiar idioms and frequent changes of person. His manner of 
writing being energetic and concise, negligent of connecting particles, 
and suddenly leaping from image to image, unavoidably approaches 
the region of" the obscure. The sentences are mostly short and abrupt, 
without roundness or fulness. The rhythm is lively, but leaping and 
hard ; while the parallelism is deficient in evenness and periodic mea- 
surement. The diction is pure, but peculiar and difficult. 3 Among 
peculiar words and unusual constructions, we may notice such as 
&*a-1St?2, ii. 4. ; T\h^\, ii. 12. ; Wn nm, iv. 18. ; r\r\l, v. 12. ; 2? T ^Q, 
v. 13., x. 6. ; nnny^, vi. 10.; D^n?^ viii. 13. ; D*3?ft particles of 
dust, viii. 6. ; nopfc'O, ix. 7, 8. ; nh^n, xiii. 5. ; »ng, where ? xiii. 14. ; 
nrn, xiii. 1. Rare and singular forms of words are such as, 'Jwtfl, 
xi. 3. ; >jNDX0?O, iv. 6. ; *3B, the infinitive mood, vi. 9. ; Wis, xi. 4. ; 
DX£, x. 14. ; N-I^ri, xi. 7. ; WH$1, xiii. 15. ; &J>"l»*i?, ix. 6. Of construc- 
tions, may be noticed, hy &t vii- 16 - '•> W& xi. 7. ; &y nay, ix. 8. ; 
•iy'nDb> nns n»V^, xiv. 3. ; fnb OT?3, iv. 4. ; Win ^n, viii. 12. ; 

1 Die Integritat der Stelle Hosea, vii. 4 — 10. in Frage gestellt, 1842. 

2 Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, edited by Stowe, p. 179. 

3 See Knobel, Prophetismus, vol. ii. p. 164. 
VOL. II. 3 P 



946 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

D3fljn njn, x. 15. 1 The first three chapters are in prose; the rest is 
poetical. 

Various quotations from Hosea occur in the New Testament, 
as in Matt. ii. 15., ix. 15., xii. 7. ; Rom. ix. 25, 26. In addition 
to these, there are some allusions in other books. Bishop Horsley 
and others suppose that there are many Messianic references of a 
general nature which lie in the spirit rather than the letter ; such 
as allusions to the calling of our Lord from Egypt, to the re- 
surrection on the third clay, to the final overthrow of the Anti- 
christian army in Palestine, the Saviour's last victory over death 
and hell, &c. &c. 2 It is doubtful, however, whether a variety of 
these considerations can be properly found in the prophet. They 
proceed from the imagination of the Christian interpreter, rather 
than the mind of Hosea himself. The Jewish nation, and Israel in 
particular, is the main subject of description ; some of its future con- 
ditions being shadowed forth in the obscure language of poetry, 
especially its conversion to God. 



CHAP. XXIV. 

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET JOEL. 



Joel was the son of Pethuel, as is stated in the title to his predic- 
tions. Nothing certain is known of his family, condition, and pur- 
suits. The traditional accounts in Pseudo-Epiphanius, according to 
which he was of Bethor, a village belonging to the tribe of Reuben, 
are unreliable. That he prophesied in the kingdom of Judah, and 
probably at Jerusalem, follows from various passages, as i. 11., ii. 1. 
15., iii. 5., iv. 1, 2. 6. &c, 16. &c. It has been conjectured by 
De Wette, Knobel, and others, that he was a priest or Levite, be- 
cause he makes frequent mention of priests, sacrifices, feasts, the 
temple, &c, showing a great desire for the externals of divine wor- 
ship. Little weight, however, can be attached to this fact as war- 
ranting the conclusion. 

The time at which he lived has been differently determined. 

(a.) J. F. Bauer assigns him to the reign of Jehoshaphat, i. e. 
914 B.C. 

(b.) Kimchi and others place him in the reign of Jehoram, i. e. 
889 B.C. 

(c.) Some suppose that he prophesied in the commencement of the 
reign of Joash, ?". e. 878 and following years B.C. Such is the view 
of Creclner, Movers, Hitzig, Meier, Winer, Ewald, Hofmann, Baur, 
Delitzsch, Keil. 

{d.) Others think that he prophesied under Uzziah, as Abarbanel, 
Vitringa, Moldenhauer, Rosennmller, Von Coelln, Eichhorn, Jaeger, 

1 See Simson's der Prophet Hosea, p. 33. 2 Theological Works, vol. vii. p. 238. 



On the Book of the Prophet Joel. 947 

Gramberg, De Wette, Holzsliausen, &c. conjecture, i. e. between 800 
and 780 B.C. This nearly coincides with the view of Hengstenberg 
and Havernick, who place the prophet in the time of Jeroboam II. 
and Uzziah. 

(e.) Bertholdt assigns the prophet to the time of Hezekiah, i. e. 
725 and following years B.C. He supposes him to have appeared 
after the sixth year of Hezekiah's reign, i. e. 718. With him agrees 
Steudel. 

(f. ) Justi puts him in the time of Micah. 

(g.) Several Jewish writers, among whom is Jarchi, with Drusius, 
Newcome, Jahn, and others, place him in the reign of Manasseh, i. e. 
696 B.C. 

(^.) Tarnovius, Eckermann, Calmet, and other?, put him in the 
reign of Josiah, i. e. 639 B.C. 

(i.) Vatke puts him after the exile. 

He must have preceded Amos, since the latter commences with a 
sentence from the former. (Comp. Amos i. 2. with Joel iii. 16.). In 
like manner he concludes with similar promises. (Comp. Amos ix. 13. 
with Joel iii. 18.) Other references may be found in Amos vii. 4. 
to Joel i, 19., and verse 3. to Joel ii. 14. Reminiscences from the 
same source occur in most of the prophets, from Amos downward. 
Hence Joel must have prophesied before Amos ; that is, before the 
twenty-seven years during which Jeroboam II. reigned, contemporary 
with Uzziah. But there are political references which carry the 
prophet higher than the time of Uzziah. The Phenicians and Philis- 
tines (iii. 4.), the Egyptians and Edomites (iii. 19.), are the only 
peoples spoken of as hostile to the theocracy. Neither the Syrians 
nor the Assyrians are mentioned. Hence the prophet could not have 
lived after Uzziah. But the political relations in which Judah stood 
to the neighbouring states, in Joel's time, carry us beyond the age of 
Uzziah. The Philistines, whom the prophet threatens with punish- 
ment for wrongs upon Judah still unrevenged (iii. 4. 7.), were hum- 
bled under Uzziah, and in part subjected to Judah ; after the threat- 
ening increase of the Assyrian power under Uzziah, friendly relations 
were maintained; but we see from iii. 19. that it was now in hostile 
attitude to Judah ; the territory of the Edomites, who had shed the 
innocent blood of the Jews in their land (iii. 19.), and which Jehovah 
had not yet avenged (iii. 21.), belonged to Judah, at least the greater 
part of it, in Uzziah's time. In the time of Joram, Edom became 
independent of Judah ; but under Amaziah it was subdued, and the 
chief city Selah taken (2 Kings xiv. 7.). This was early in Amaziah's 
time, when the innocent blood of the Jews which had been shed in 
the land of the Edomites was avenged, and the prophecy of Joel iii. 
19. 21. was fulfilled. Hence Joel must have written before Ama- 
ziah's victory over the Edomites in the valley of Salt, and after they 
became independent under Joram. During the one year's reign of 
Joram's successor, Ahaziah (2 Kings viii. 26, 27.), and the six years' 
interregnum of Athalia (2 Kings xi. 3.), the worship of strange gods 
prevailed ; which does not suit the age of Joel, when the Levitical 
worship flourished. (Joel i. 9. 13, 14. 16., ii. 14.) It was Jehoa^h 



948 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

A?ho restored the worship, taking active and zealous measures for its 
purity and maintenance. But this continued only as long as the 
young king followed the direction of Jehoiada the priest. After the 
death of the latter, no more burnt-offerings were brought into the 
temple (2 Chron. xxiv. 18.), as was usual in the time of Joel. Hence 
the prophet flourished in the early part of Joash's reign. Accord- 
ingly he may be placed between 877 and 847 B.C., i.e. within the 
first thirty years of the reign of Joash. 

The prophecy was occasioned by the desolating effects of a terrible 
plague of locusts, accompanied with scorching drought. 

The book contains a single prophecy, and consists of two parts, 
viz. i. 2 — ii. 18., andii. 19 — hi. 21. The first has an exhortation to 
repentance amid the fearful plague, which address becomes more 
urgent towards the close ; the second contains the divine promise re- 
specting the removal of this judgment upon the people, the destruc- 
tion of all nations hostile to the theocracy, and the glorification of 
that theocracy by the richest blessings of nature and the outpouring 
of the Spirit on all flesh. The two parts are connected by the his- 
torical remark intervening, " And Jehovah answered and said to his 
people," constituting together a united piece. Accordingly the pro- 
phecy relating to the future commences with part of the nineteenth 
verse : " Behold, I will send you corn," &c. 

It has been disputed whether the description of the locusts be 
literal or tropical. Is a real army of foes meant by the locusts ; or 
does the language refer to those animals alone? The figurative ac- 
ceptation was anciently adopted by the Chaldee paraphrast, Ephrem 
Syrus, Jei'ome, and others. In modern times it has been advo- 
cated by Hengstenberg 1 and Havernick. 2 Where nothing decisive 
can be said against the literal sense it should be followed. This 
is the case here. The question turns upon the fact, whether in the 
first half of the prophecy a present or a future calamity is depicted. 
The reader will see that the desolation is a present thing, on the 
ground of which Joel exhorts the people to repentance. There 
is no intimation that he speaks of future events; and to regard 
the description as a prediction, is without analogy in the pro- 
phets. Though Hengstenberg has endeavoured at length to com- 
bat the arguments of Credner in favour of the literal accept- 
ation, and to establish the figurative one, we do not think he has 
succeeded. The chief considerations adduced for the latter are the 
17th and 20th verses of the second chapter : "Give not thine heritage 
to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them " (D^J DZrpKJp?). 
Here it is said the figure is dropped, and the heathen plainly men- 
tioned. But this is not conclusive unless ?£*£> meant only to rule. It 
signifies also to use a hy-word against, to mock any one, as is shown 
by h&i? hvn, in Ezek. xii. 23., xvi. 44., and D^'o, in Num. xxi. 27. 
In vain does Hengstenberg deny this use of the verb, and attempt to 
explain these parallels otherwise. 3 Ewald rightly translates " dass 

1 Christologie, vol. in. p. 146. et seqq. 2 Einleitung, ii. 2. p. 294. et seqq. 

3 Christologie, iii. p, 159. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Joel 949 

Heiden ueber sie spotten," " that the heathen should mock at them ; " 
and his authority is immensely superior to Hengstenberg's on a philo- 
logical point. 1 In the 20th verse the word VjiB-VD, the northern, is 
said to be inexplicable on any other supposition than that of a north- 
ern army. History knows no example, Hengstenberg asserts, of 
locusts coming to Palestine out of the north, out of Syria. But it is 
quite possible for swarms of locusts, of the acridium migratorium, 
to be met with in Irak, Syria, and the Syrian desert ; and they might 
be brought by a north-east wind from the last-named region to 
Judea, whence the word northern is applicable. 2 The same critic 
calls attention to the alleged fact that in the description of the locusts 
there is no mention of their flight. But surely their flight is implied 
in ii. 10., " the earth shall quake before them;'''' for the word translated 
before them, l^s?, does not mean, as Hengstenberg says, before (the 
army appears or arrives), but in their presence, as its use in the 3rd 
verse of the chapter and elsewhere proves. None of the particulars 
urged by this critic against the literal explanation is weighty ; while 
various phenomena belonging to the description apply only to locusts. 
The effects of the hostile invasion, if such is meant, are confined to 
the vegetable productions and cattle, no intimation being afforded of 
personal injury sustained by the Jews. 

Some think that the prophecy has a double sense; the primary being, 
that a plague of locusts should, devour the land ; the secondary, that 
the Babylonian or the Assyrian invasion should take place. It ap- 
pears to us quite unwarrantable to include, in the secondary sense, 
the invasions of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans, by whom the 
Jews were successively subjugated ; just as it is arbitrary in Heng- 
stenberg to extend the figurative meaning to many events, — to the 
hostile attacks made upon the church generally. The double sense 
in every form must be rejected, since the prophet describes a devasta- 
tion then present. 

Various Messianic prophecies occur in Joel, which are peculiar to 
himself, viz. that in the time of which he speaks God will pour 
out his Spirit on all flesh (ii. 28, 29., &c. ; comp. Acts ii. 16., &c.) ; 
that He will hold a solemn judgment on the enemies of his people in 
the valley of Jehoshaphat (iii. 2. &c.) ; that this solemn event will 
be ushered in by signs in heaven and on earth (in. 14, 15.); and that 
a fountain shall come forth from the house of God to water the valley 
of Shittim (iii. 18.). The last image is carried out fully inEzekiel. 
(xlvii.) 

The book belongs to the best productions of Hebrew literature. 
The ideas are vigorous and noble; the diction pure, classical, and 
elegant. The language is distinguished alike for depth and fulness, 
and the easy, smooth flow with which it rolls on. We see a rich 
imagination combined with a nervous style. In regularity of rhythm 
he resembles Amos ; in the liveliness of the rhythm, Nahum ; and in 
both respects Habakkuk. 3 The description of the swarm of locusts, 

1 Die Propheten, u. s. w. vol. i. p. 76. 2 See Keil's Einleit, p. 326. 

3 See Kuobel's Proplietismus, yoI. ii. p. 143. 
3 P 3 



950 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

which, like an innumerable army, darkens the sun, spares nothing, 
but irresistibly passes into the cities and houses, lays waste the whole 
land, and lastly finds its grave in the sea, is picturesque and natural. 
The fidelity of the narrative, wrought up as it is with much poetic 
effect, is attested by various travellers who have witnessed the ra- 
vages of this insect. They generally appear in times of great drought 
(i. 20., ii. 3. 23.), brought by the wind from the desert, and soon 
covering the entire surface of the country wherever they settle. In 
a few days their ravages are apparent, the very foliage and bark of 
the trees being destroyed, (i, 11, 12.) In towns they cover the 
streets and houses, creeping over the buildings and walls (ii. 7. 9.), 
and continue their march unchecked (ii. 5. 7. 8.) till they commonly 
perish in the Mediterranean Sea. (ii. 20.) Ewald thinks that Joel 
must have spoken and written much ; that this little book is not his 
only composition. The reason or reasons which have led the critic 
to entertain this view are not of much weight. One thing is certain, 
that nothing else of Joel's than the present composition has been left 
to posterity. And it is likely that he himself published the book in 
the form it now has. 



CHAP. XXV. 



THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET AMOS. 



Amos was a shepherd of Tekoah, a small town in the kingdom of 
Judah. Although doubt has been thrown on the fact that he was a 
native of this place, and attempts have been made to show that he 
was an Ephraimite, or born in the territories of Israel, no probability 
attaches to any other view. 1 In vii. 14. Amos himself says, " I was 
no prophet, neither was I a prophet's son ; but I was an herdman, and 
a gatherer of sycamore fruit ;" whence it appears that he was not 
educated for a prophet in the prophetic schools, nor intended to be 
initiated into that office by men ; but that he was a simple herdman 
who kept sheep, and cultivated sycamore trees. Without having re- 
ceived previous training, he was called of God immediately to the 
prophetic office, and furnished with the gifts it required. It is un- 
necessary to inquire whether the description of himself we have 
quoted imply that he was rich or poor. Certainly the word em- 
ployed, Ip.'lJ, means in 2 Kings iii. 4. a possessor of large herds of 
sheep. Besides, his prophecies show an acquaintance with the law 
and the earlier prophets, which would seem to indicate that he had 
been in comfortable circumstances, and had received an education 
above the position of a poor man, when he was called to the prophetic 

1 See Baur's der Prophet Amos erklart, p. 41. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Amos. 951 

office. It is expressly stated that he prophesied in the days of Uzziah 
king of Judah, and in the days of Jeroboam, the son of Joash, king 
of Israel, two years before the earthquake, (i. 1.) Nothing more is 
known of this earthquake than that it took place under Uzziah. 
(Zech. xiv. 5.) Josephus and others refer it to that prince's usurpa- 
tion of the priestly office when he attempted to offer incense ; but 
this is inconsistent with the sacred narrative. As Jeroboam died in 
the fifteenth year of Uzziah's reign, the earthquake could not have 
happened later than the seventeenth year of Uzziah. Hence we 
may conclude that Amos prophesied ( about 790 B.C., and conse- 
quently was contemporary with Hosea, with Joel, and in part with 
Isaiah. 

The occasion which led the prophet to deliver his predictions was 
mainly the state of Israel, incidentally that of Judah also. The 
former kingdom had been restored to its ancient limits and prosperity. 
But with this outward prosperity had come luxury, pride, idolatry, 
immorality, and oppression of the poor. Accordingly the prophet 
was raised up to declare coming judgments, and to reprove wicked- 
ness. And as Judah was not free from the like corruption, she is 
also threatened and censured. But although the divine judgments 
impending over the neighbouring nations which oppressed the Israel- 
ites, and over Israel and Judah themselves, are announced ; a prospect 
of repentance and restoration is opened before the better portion of 
the people. These punishments of sin were intended to purify Israel, 
and lead her view forward to a more glorious time when she should 
be delivered from neighbouring oppression and enjoy far greater 
prosperity. The mercy of God was yet to be extended to her when 
she should have repented. 

The book of Amos admits of four principal divisions, viz. — 

I. Threatenings of divine punishment on neighbouring nations, 
Judah, and Israel, (i. ii.) 

II. Denunciations of the divine judgments against Israel, both 
ao-ainst such as think they have some claim to impunity as belonging 
to the chosen people, and those who lean on foreign power, de- 
spising the prophetic word. (iii. — vi.) 

III. Threatening visions spoken at Bethel to the Ephraimites. 
(vii.— ix. 10.) 

IV. Promises of future blessings to the pious, (ix. 11 — 15.) 
Various attempts have been made by Harenberg, Dahl, Bertholdt, 

and others, to divide the different portions and discourses according 
to the times at which they were spoken. But this is impossible. 
The original germ of the whole lies in vii. 1 — ix. 10., which the 
prophet uttered at Bethel. On returning home, he committed those 
utterances to writing ; and expanded them by means of additions so 
as to fit them for a wider circle of persons, prefixing for this purpose 
i. — vi. 1 This indeed is denied by Havernick and Keil, but on in- 
sufficient grounds. The hypothesis of Knobel, that iii. — vi. contain 
the declarations of the prophet at Bethel; and that vii. 10 — 17. are 

1 See Baur, der Prophet Amos, u. s. vr., p. 111. et seqq. 
3 P 4 



952 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

not in their right place, but should come after the 6th chapter; 
appears to us untenable. 1 The first division, viz. i. 1 — ii. 16., may- 
be regarded as introductory to the rest. It is directed against the 
neighbouring Gentile nations, the enemies of the covenant-people, 
who were to be punished for their sins against the living God ; 
thereby showing to Israel how the people of God themselves must 
be visited with proportionably heavier punishments for their obsti- 
nate rebellion against Him who had chosen them from among the 
nations. 

The predictions contained in the work should be carefully com- 
pared with the history of the times to which they belong, as described 
in the books of Kings and Chronicles. 

The importance and position of Amos in the development of 
Israelitism have been well pointed out by Baur. The distinction 
between an Israel according to the spirit, and an Israel after the flesh , 
first distinctly appears in this prophet, who clearly enforces an in- 
ternal reception of the law, without which all outward works are 
thoroughly worthless. In him also we have an early intimation that 
the Gentiles may participate in the prosperity promised to Israel. In 
connecting with the person of David the idea of a ruler descended 
from him, he exhibits the incipient conviction that the separation 
between Jehovah and his people can only take place by a new spi- 
ritual creation proceeding from a greater than David. (Comp. ix. 
11— 15.)^ 

There is little doubt that the prophet himself wrote the book as we 
now have it. Having fulfilled his mission at Bethel, he enlarged his 
declarations after his return to Tekoah, so as to deliver to posterity 
the prophecies he was prompted to express ; with a title to mark the 
time of his activity in the service of God. 

The prophecies of Amos are distinguished by clearness, regularity, 
force, and freshness. The rhythm of the sentences is rounded and 
periodic ; the imagery, which is commonly taken from nature and 
pastoral life, is fresh, beautiful, full of life. Compare iii. 4. 8., iv. 7. 
9., v. 8., vi. 12., ix. 3., i. 3., ii. 13., iii. 5. 12., iv. 2. 9., v. 19., vii. 1., 
ix. 9. 13. 15. When, therefore, Jerome calls him "rude in speech, 
but not in knowledge," 2 applying to him what the apostle Paul said 
of himself, we must not suppose that the prophet is rude, ineloquent, 
or destitute of the highest qualities of composition ; though Calmet 
and others seem to have understood Jerome as uttering that opinion. 
If he meant so, he was certainly mistaken. Lowth, who was no mean 
judge of style, says, " Let any person who has candour and perspica- 
city enough to judge, not from the man, but from his writings, open 
the volume of his predictions, and he will, I think, agree with me, 
that our shepherd is not a whit behind the very chief of the prophets. 
He will agree, that as in sublimity and magnificence he is almost 
equal to the greatest, so in splendour of diction and elegance of ex- 
pression he is scarcely inferior to any." 3 Some of his descriptions 

1 Prophetisnms, vol. ii. p. 151. 2 Prooem ad Amos. 

s Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, edited by Stowe, p. 180. 



On the Book of the Prophet Obadiah. 953 

of the majesty of Jehovah are in the highest style of sublimity, as 
ix. 5, 6., v. 8, 9. &c. Perhaps Jerome referred to the orthography 
of Amos, which certainly departs in various instances from the purest, 
reminding one of the flat dialect of the shepherd. Thus we find ptyb 
for p*SO, ii. 13. ; Dgfa for DDil, v. 11. ; 3Knp for n#n», vi. 8.; tpbl? for 
epb>p, vi. 10. ; prif) for priy*, vii. 16. ; y}pm for h^J, viii. 8. Peculiar 
expressions are observable in " cleanness of teeth," iv. 6. ; " the high 
places of Isaac," vii. 9.; "the house of Isaac," vii. 16.; "he that 
createth the wind," iv. 13. 

Baur has pointed out allusions to the prophecies of Amos in 
Hosea, Zechariah, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel. And with 
the exception of the first, it is very probable that he is correct in 
finding such references. We cannot believe with the same critic 
that Amos knew and regarded the oracle of Joel, at least in its 
written form ; or that he aimed to demonstrate the continuous vali- 
dity of Joel's utterances. That he was acquainted with the Penta- 
teuch, there is abundant evidence in his book, not so much in diction 
as in sentiment. The allusions to it are numerous. Many passages 
are based upon, and presuppose, its statements. The Israelites were 
not ignorant of the law of Moses in the time of Amos, else the pro- 
phetic warnings and threatenings would have been unintelligible to 
them. 

There are two quotations from Amos in the New Testament, viz. 
v. 25, 26, 27. in Acts vii. 42. ; and ix. 11. in Acts xv. 16. Both 
are attended with no small difficulty ; especially the latter, which 
receives a Messianic sense in the mouth of James. This is the 
consummation of its meaning. The prediction was not fulfilled at 
once, nor in abundant temporal blessings, which were, so to speak, 
only the incipient fulfilment. Its complete sense could not be brought 
out till after the Messiah's advent and the glorious effects of his 
reign. 



CHAP. XXVI. 

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET OBADIAH. 

According to patristic traditions, Obadiah belonged to the tribe of 
Ephraim, and to Bethachamar or Bethacharam in the Shechemite ter- 
ritory. 1 He lived in the time of Ahab king of Israel ; hid the pro- 
phets who were persecuted by Jezebel ; and as captain of the third 
fifty was spared by Elijah whose disciple he had been (2 Kings 
i. 13. &c). His grave was pointed out in later times, along with 
those of Elisha and John the Baptist, in Sebaste. Rabbinical 

1 See Delitzsch, De Habacuci prophetse vita, &c. p. 60. et seqq. 



954 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

accounts mostly agree ; some of them stating that he had been an 
Edomite, and became a Jew. All this is fabulous. The character 
of his prophecy shows that he was a Jew ; for it treats of the rela- 
tions of Edom to the theocracy, and predicts its downfal. 

The age in which Obadiah lived is much disputed. 

(a.) Hofmann, Delitzsch, and Keil, place him under Jehoram, i. e. 
889—884 B.C., and before Joel. 

(b.) Jaeger, Hengstenberg, Caspari, Havernick, &c. put him 
under Uzziah. 

(c.) Vitringa, Dupin, Carpzov, Kueper, place him in the time of 
Ahaz. 

(d.) Abenesra, Luther, Calov, J. H. Michaelis, Schnurrer, Winer, 
Knobel, Ewald, &c. think that he prophesied after the destruction 
of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, 588 B.C. 

(e.) Hitzig supposes that he was an Egyptian Jew, who wrote 
soon after 312 B.C. 

The reference of the tenth and following verses is to the destruction 
of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, at which the Edomites rejoiced. 
Regarding therefore the preterites employed as involving past time, 
Obadiah prophesied after the downfal of Jerusalem, i. e. after 588 
B.C. It is true that the Chaldeans are not expressly mentioned ; but 
they seem to be implied as the conquerors of the Jews. And the 
description agrees better with the entire destruction of Jerusalem 
(comp. ver. 11 — 14. 17.) by Nebuchadnezzar, than with any pre- 
ceding catastrophe. This is allowed by Havernick, Caspari, and 
others, who think that the prophet lived and wrote in the time of 
Uzziah. These latter critics regard the preterites as prophetic, and 
therefore as referring to future times. Caspari x endeavours to 
prove at length that Obadiah lived under the reign of Uzziah ; but 
his arguments are weak. 

Keil argues, after Hofmann and Delitzsch, that he wrote before 
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans, because of the parallel 
in Jeremiah xlix. 7 — 22. which is younger; because of the absence 
of all reference to the destruction and burning of Jerusalem as well 
as the Babylonian exile ; his mention of the entire body of prisoners 
belonging to this army of the sons of Israel among the Canaanites 
as far as Zarpath, and of the prisoners of Jerusalem in Sepharad 
(verse 20.); and the unmistakeable imitation of Joel (comp. iii. 17. 
Obad. verse 17. ; Joel iii. 19. Obad. verse 10. ; Joel iii. 3. Obad. 
verse 11. &c). Accordingly, he refers the entire description to the 
taking and plundering of Jerusalem under Jehoram, when a great 
part of the people were carried away into slavery among the Ca- 
naanites and Greeks (2 Chron. xxi. 16. &c, comp. with Joel iv. 3. 6., 
Amos i. 6. 9.), and concludes that Obadiah prophesied before Joel, 
and under Jehoram, 889 — 884 B.C. 2 

This reasoning will scarcely bear examination. As to the parallel 
prophecy in Jeremiah xlix. 7 — 22., the following considerations are 
urged for its being later than Obadiah's : that Jeremiah in all his 

1 Der Prophet Obadja ausgelegt, p. 35. etseqq. 2 Einleit. pp. 331, 332. 



On the Book of the Prophet Obadiah. 955 

prophecies against nations has made use of older ones ; that of all the 
expressions in Jeremiah's prophecy against Edom, peculiar to him 
and characteristic of his style, not one is found in Obadiah ; and, on 
the other hand, nothing of what Jeremiah has in common with Oba- 
diah reappears in Jeremiah, but bears another stamp ; that the pro- 
phecy of Obadiah forms a well-arranged whole, having an internal 
connection and progress ; while that of Jeremiah has no progressive 
development, but puts together different elements, like the parts of 
a chain, one added to another ; and that a comparison of the differences 
between the two texts throughout is favourable to the originality of 
Obadiah, and, consequently, to imitation on the part of Jeremiah. 1 

There is some weight in these observations. Jeremiah is doubtless 
an imitator ; and the marks of originality in his prophecy against 
Edom are wanting. Hence we suppose that both he and Obadiah 
made use of a piece belonging to an older prophet. Nothing in 
Obadiah is opposed to this assumption. Keil asserts that it has been 
refuted by Caspari and Delitzsch ; an opinion which may be taken for 
what it is worth. And we still believe, that it is more natural to 
regard verses 11 — 14. as descriptive of the calamity which had come 
upon Jerusalem from the Chaldeans and the destruction of the 
kingdom. The restriction put by Keil, or rather by Delitzsch whom 
he follows, upon D}5X DV? (verse 12.), upon rn-ini »J3 (verse 12.), on 
J"ta (verse 20.), is not very natural. 2 Instead of Joel borrowing from 
Obadiah, the reverse is the case. Tl 3 originality of Joel is generally 
admitted ; and therefore it should not be impaired in the present 
case. As Obadiah has borrowed from the prophecy of Balaam (comp. 
verses 4. 18. &c, with Numb. xxiv. 18. 21. &c); so he has copied 
some parts of Joel. 

The prophecy of Obadiah, which is contained in a single chapter, 
consists of two parts, viz. verses 1—16. and 17 — 21. The first part 
is threatening, announcing the destruction of Edom for their pride 
and carnal security, as well as for their unseemly rejoicing after the 
downfal of Jerusalem. The second part is somewhat consolatory, 
foretelling the glorification of the theocracy and its victory over 
all enemies of whom Edom is the representative. 

The accomplishment of what is foretold took place when the Jews 
returned to their own land ; when the Maccabean princes conquered 
the Edomites (1 Mace. v. 3—5. 65. &c); and will be fulfilled still 
more remarkably in the Christian dispensation. 

The language is tolerably pure, and the general style has many 
beauties. Yet it is inferior to that of the older prophets. Interro- 
gations are too numerous, a circumstance which detracts from the 
effect, especially in the 8th verse. 

There are four prophecies by different persons against Edom, viz. 
Isaiah (xxxiv.), Ezekiel (xxxv.), Jeremiah (xlix. 7 — 22.), and the 
present. Isaiah uses the strongest terms, describing Edom's over- 
throw as utter extinction. His hatred is deep and deadly against 
it as the enemy of the theocracy. Ezekiel paints the hostile conduct 

1 Einleit. pp. 332, 333. 2 See Einleit p. 333. 



956 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

of the Edomites ; and in warm language threatens sanguinary de- 
struction. Jeremiah draws out the ruin of the transgressors in a less 
vehement and weaker tone. Obadiah is calmer and more subdued, 
announcing the calamities coming upon the enemy with less passion, 
but equal confidence. 



CHAP. XXVII. 

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET JONAH. 



The book of Jonah, called Tip "l§>5, derives its name from Jonah the 
son of Amittai, a native of Gath-Hepher in the tribe of Zebulon. 
From the unquestionable identity of the prophet with the Jonah son 
of Amittai mentioned in 2 Kings xiv. 25., there is little doubt that 
he lived in the time of Jeroboam II., at the commencement of that 
king's reign, i. e. 825 and following years B. C. 1 
The book consists of two parts, viz : — 

I. The prophet's first mission to Nineveh, his attempt to flee to 
Tarshish with the way in which it was frustrated, and his deliverance 
from the great fish that swallowed him. (i. ii.) 

II. His second mission to Nineveh whose inhabitants repented in 
consequence of his preaching ; with the discontent of Jonah who 
murmured when they were spared, (iii. iv.) 

With the exception of the second chapter, containing the prayer of 
Jonah in poetry, the remainder of the work is plain prose. 

In relation to the contents of this singular book many hypotheses 
have been entertained. 

1. It may be taken as literal history, a simple narrative of real 
events. This has been the prevailing view till a recent period, not 
only in the Jewish synagogue but also in the Christian church. It 
has been maintained by Lilienthal, Hess, Liiderwald, Piper, Ver- 
schuir, Steudel, Reindl, Sack, Havernick, Laberenz, Delitzsch, 
Baunigarten, Welte, Keil, and others. In favour of it the following 
considerations are chiefly urged. 

The many historical and geographical notices of a genuine histori- 
cal character indicate the literality of the entire proceedings. Thus, 
the sending of Jonah to Nineveh suits the relations of that time, 
when Israel first entered into relations with Asshur (Hosea v. 13., 
x. 6.) ; and because only twelve years after Jeroboam's death under 
Menahem, the great corruption which had been threatened by the 
prophets from that quarter through Phul, came upon the kingdom of 
Israel. 

The description of Nineveh's greatness (iii. 3.) is in harmony with 

1 See Drake's Notes on the Prophecies of Jonah and Hosea, p. 3. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Jonah. 957 

notices contained in classical writers. (Diod. Siculus, il. 3.) Its 
deep moral corruption is attested by Nahum (iii. 1.) and Zephaniah 
(ii. 13. &c); while the mourning of men and beasts (iii. 5 — 8.) is 
confirmed as an Asiatic custom by Herodotus. 

The fundamental idea of the book excludes all fiction, in connec- 
tion with the psychologically exact description of the prophet himself, 
the other persons mentioned, the people in the ship, and the Nine- 
vites themselves. That Jehovah shows mercy to the heathen 
when they repent, compared with the prophet's conduct, who did not 
wish them to be partakers of God's grace, stands in strong contrast 
to the spirit of the later Judaism ; as also the description of the 
heathen mariners, not only praying to their gods, but as soon as they 
heard of Jehovah, afraid of his auger too, and having recourse to 
hiin. The Ninevites believing in God and repenting in sackcloth 
and ashes, in marked contrast with the Israelitish prophet fleeing 
from the presence of Jehovah, and angry at the forbearance shown 
to the heathen, even after his own miraculous deliverance, are his- 
torical traits which exclude every kind of poetical invention. In 
like manner its literal character is said to be attested by the reception 
of the book into the canon among the prophetical writings. Why 
did not the collectors of the canonical books put it among the Hagio- 
grapha, if they thought that it exhibited religious truths in the garb 
of allegory or fable ? But its historical character is put beyond all 
doubt by the expressions of our Lord as given by Matthew and Luke 
(Matt. xii. 39. &c, xvi. 4., Luke xi. 29—32.), which throw light 
upon the typical character of the prophet's mission. The allusions of 
Christ to Old Testament events on similar occasions, are to actual 
occurrences (John iii. 14., vi. 48.) ; and there is no intimation in the 
Bible of its being a" myth, allegory, or parable. 1 

These considerations have weight, especially in their collective 
character. But they will probably affect different minds very differ- 
ently. That they have not had much influence over many is apparent 
from the fact that the majority of recent critics have betaken them- 
selves to other views. Most of the modern interpreters who are able 
to read the original and to criticise Hebrew style, have abandoned 
the purely historical hypothesis. 

2. Many look upon it as a mere fiction, as Sender, Herder, Michaelis, 
Staudlin, Meyer, Hitzig. Others regard it as an allegory, as Herm. 
Van der Hardt, Less, Palmer, Krahmer. Others consider it a poeti- 
cal my thus, as Gramberg and F. C. Baur ; while Jahn and Pareau 
regard it as a parable. 

3. A more plausible view is, that the book contains a prophetic tra- 
dition which is poetically elaborated for a moral and didactic purpose, 
dressed out with marvellous circumstances, and furnished with mythic 
materials. This opinion was put forth by Rosenmiiller, in brief 
hints, carried out and improved by Gesenius, and is adopted by 
Bertholdt, Winer, De Wette, Knobel, Ewald, Friederichsen, &c. It 
is now the most approved hypothesis in Germany, based upon the 

1 See Keil's Einleit. pp. 336, 337. 



958 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Phenician mythus of Hercules and the sea-monster. According to 
tradition, Joppa was the city where Andromeda was chained to a 
rock, and where she was released from a huge sea-monster by Per- 
seus. Originally identical with this mythus was another, relating to 
Hesione fettered to a rock in the sea, whom Hercules delivered 
by springing into the belly of the sea-monster and remaining there 
alive three days. It is supposed that the mythus in question was 
spread among the neighbouring Hebrews, and transferred, with such 
alterations as had been superinduced upon it by the national ideas, 
to an old prophet, of whom all that was known was, that he once 
undertook, or intended to undertake, a sea-voyage. The writer in- 
tended to employ the popular tradition which had originated thus 
for a moral purpose. 

It is against the view in question that the mythus has little re- 
semblance to the Biblical narratives. Besides, it is improbable that a 
Hebrew writer should have had occasion to work upon the materials 
of a Philistine mythus after an Israelitish fashion, as Winer himself 
asserts. l 

Some of the objections made to the literal character of the nar- 
rative rest upon the denial of miracle. With such we can have no 
sympathy. Jehovah interfered miraculously in many ways and at 
many times, for the benefit of his people. The miracle of the pro- 
phet being three days and three nights in the great fish's interior, 
and having afterwards been vomited forth alive, has given rise to the 
scoffs of infidels, and to much objection. The Scripture does not 
speak of a whale, as many have taken for granted, but of a great fish. 
The species is not defined. It is now commonly thought to have 
been the canis carcharias of the shark species, which is common in 
the Mediterranean Sea, and is able to swallow a man entire. Bishop 
Jebb, however, thinks that it was the tohale ; but that Jonah was in 
a cavity of its throat, — a receptacle capable, according to naturalists, 
of containing a merchant-ship's jolly boat full of men. 2 This strange 
hypothesis appears to have been suggested by the Greek word KoCkia 
in the New Testament applied to the part of the fish in which Jonah 
was. But the corresponding Hebrew word in the Old Testament 
rejects the sense here put upon icoCkla. 

The objection derived from the gourd is of no force, because the 
tree was the Ricinus, whose properties render the possibility of what 
is related about it quite intelligible. 

Various other objections have been refuted by Havernick. 3 

It must be confessed, however, that there are circumstances in the 
book which militate against the exact literality of all that is related 
in it. 

(«.) The character of Jonah himself is a mystery, as described in 
the work. How could a prophet imagine he could flee from the pre- 
sence of the Lord ? Was a prophet so ignorant of Jehovah, the true 
God, even after he had received a divine commission, as to attempt 

1 Biblisches Kealworterbuch, vol. i. p. 597. 2 Sacred Literature, pp. 178, 179. 

3 Einleitung, ii. 2. p. 338. et seqq. 



On the Booh, of the Prophet Jonah, 959 

to escape from the eye and control of the Omniscient one ? It is no 
solution of the difficulty to say with one that he must have been par- 
tially insane. Does the Almighty select such instruments to be his 
ambassadors ? What adds to the perplexity is, that even after the 
prophet's miraculous preservation and his fulfilment of the second 
commission, he was angry because the threatenings he uttered were 
not executed. That God is merciful to the penitent wherever they 
are found, he did not know. 

(b.) The long and toilsome journey to Nineveh undertaken by the 
prophet into a foreign land is attended with improbability. The case 
of Elisha, adduced by Havernick as analogous, is not so. (2 Kings 
viii. 7. &c.) And then, how is it likely that the heathen inhabitants 
of Nineveh should listen to a solitary stranger coming among them ? 
It has been assumed that the knowledge of Jonah's miraculous de- 
liverance had reached them and given power to his preaching ; but 
it is a mere assumption. 

(c.) The prayer of Jonah is poetical. It has both the imagery 
and form of poetry. Was it uttered, as we now have it, by the 
prophet under such circumstances ? It has all the characteristics of 
having been put into his mouth by some poet after Jonah. We attri- 
bute no weight to the resemblance between its phraseology and that 
of certain Psalms, especially xlii. xxxi. xviii. Similar circumstances 
suggest similar images and diction. But the poetical nature of the 
second chapter is opposed to the idea of its having been uttered as it 
is, within the fish. Such is the difficulty of believing that the hymn 
was uttered by Jonah within the fish's belly, that some have had 
recourse to another translation of the words n»n *&lf>D, on account of 
the fislis belly, or out, when out of, the fish's belly; either of which 
interpretations is inconsistent with the context and unnatural. 

These and other circumstances would incline us to believe that, 
though Jonah existed as a prophet, had a miraculous deliverance from 
danger, &c. &c, that in short, although the book contains real history 
as its basis, yet that the groundwork has been embellished by a 
writer who lived considerably after the prophet. How far the his- 
tory is parabolic, and how far real, it is now impossible to determine. 
We believe that Jonah was a real person and a prophet. 

The scope of the book has been thought by some to show the 
divine forbearance and longsuffering towards sinners, who are 
spared on their sincere repentance. But this is improbable. The 
writer intended to counteract the narrow notions of the Jewish 
people respecting the heathen, whom they considered the object of 
divine wrath. 

By whom and when the book was written, it is difficult to say. 
That it was not composed soon after Jonah's return to his native 
land, by himself, internal evidence appears to us to make very proba- 
ble. The narrative is in the third person, and there are various Ara- 
maisms which can scarcely belong to the ninth century before Christ. 1 

1 See Friedrichsen's Kritische Uebersicht der verschiedenen Ansichten, u. s. w. p. 1 79. 
et seqq. 



960 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

The latter cannot be resolved into the intercourse between the 
territory of Zebulon, to which Jonah belonged, and the northern 
parts. All that Delitzsch, Havernick, and Keil have stated, chiefly 
in reply to the arguments of Friederichsen, appear to us insufficient 
to show the Jonah-composition of the work. We should place it, 
on the whole, about the time of the Babylonian exile, with Jager. 
Many, however, put it later. Jahn, Knobel, Koester, and Ewald, date 
it soon after the captivity ; others, as Vatke and Hitzig, still later. 

Although some, as Spinoza, have thought the work fragmentary 
in character, others that it consists of different pieces, we are unable 
to perceive the justness of such views. It looks like a connected 
whole. The language is uniform ; the mode of narration, with the 
exception of the second chapter, is alike. The commencement and 
close consist with one another. 

At the commencement of Jeroboam the Second's reign, the prophet 
predicted the successful conquests and enlarged territory of Israel. 
(2 Kings xiv. 25.) This oracle appears to be lost; for Hitzig's 
attempt to find it in Isaiah, chapters xv. xvi., is unsuccessful. 

The book differs from other prophetic works in this, that while 
they contain the speeches of the authors, this one presents an inci- 
dent in the life of the prophet. The doctrines contained in it are, 
that a prophet cannot elude the impulse of the Divine Spirit ; God is 
the God of the heathen, and has regard to them also ; He forgives 
more readily than He punishes ; and, a prophet is not censurable if his 
prediction is not fulfilled according to expectation. 

Some have considered Jonah a type of Christ, an opinion which 
Delitzsch does not scruple to advance, quite recently. 1 But there is 
no foundation for it. He was a sign to the Ninevites. Neither can 
his three days and three nights' residence in the fish's belly be called 
typical of Christ's remaining in the grave for the same period and 
being delivered from the power of death. The two events resembled 
one another, and are compared by the Saviour as analogous. But 
all analogies are not types. 



CHAP. XXVIII. 



THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET MICAH. 



Micah was a native of Moresheth in the neighbourhood of Gath. 
The epithet »5^B&, the Morashite, serves to distinguish him from 
the older prophet of the same name, who lived under Ahab (1 Kings 
xxii. 8. &c), also called Micaiah. According to the inscription 
of the book, he prophesied under Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah ; and 

1 In Rudelbach and Guericke's Zeitschrift for 1840, p. 122. 



On the Book of the Prophet Micah. 961 

was therefore contemporary with Isaiah. His predictions are directed 
against all Israel, especially against Judah; and were probably de- 
livered in Jerusalem, as may be inferred from i. 9. 

The authenticity of the inscription, at least in part, has been called 
in question by various critics, as De Wette, Hitzig, Ewald, &c, be- 
cause Jeremiah says expressly that Micah predicted the destruction 
of Jerusalem, in the reign of Hezekiah (Jer. xxvi. 18., compare 
Micah iii. 12.) ; because the dangerous relations of the two king- 
doms to Assyria and Egypt are presupposed (i. 6 — 16., iii. 12., iv. 
9 — 14., v. 4. &c, vii. 12.) ; and because the remaining prophecies 
contain no reference to another time. Hence it is concluded that 
the first years of Hezekiah were the time of his prophetic ministry. 
We confess that these considerations are precarious grounds for 
questioning the correctness of the inscription. In Jeremiah the 
elders of the land mention the days of Hezekiah, not because the 
time when the single oracle in Micah iii. was uttered was still 
known to them by good historical recollection, as Ewald asserts 1 , nor 
because they themselves may have lived at that time, as Havernick 
says 2 , for then they must have been above a hundred years old ; but 
because Hezekiah was the only one of the three kings specified in 
the title who had a theocratic authority, since he had attended to the 
voice of the prophets ; and probably Micah put together the separate 
utterances contained in his book under this king. It is very likely 
that a later person would have mentioned Hezekiah alone, in the in- 
scription. The parallelism of Micah iv. 1 — 3. Avith Isaiah ii. 2 — 4. 
could be no sufficient reason in the eyes of such an one to go beyond 
the time of Hezekiah, and to name along with him Jotham and Ahaz. 
When it is said that Micah himself could hardly name Samaria in the 
insci'iption, it is difficult to see the reason, since he prophesies the 
downfal of Samaria by name in i. 6. &c. 

The prophecies harmonise well with the inscription, for in them the 
destruction of Samaria is announced as impending, and Assyria is 
specified as the most dangerous enemy of the theocracy. In like 
manner, there is a mutual connection with the prophecies of Isaiah, 
which speaks in favour of the time indicated in the title. There is a 
similarity of ideas in i. 3. to Isaiah xxvi. 21. ; in v. 1. &c. to Isaiah 
vii. 14.; in vii. 12. to Isaiah xi. 11. &c. ; in vii. 17. to Isaiah xlix. 23. 
The agreement of iv. 1 — 3. with Isaiah ii. is obvious. 

The book may be divided into three parts, viz. : 1. Chapters i. ii. ; 
2. iii. iv. v. ; 3. vi. vii. Each begins with the same word, WP^, hear 
ye, i. 2., iii. 1., vi. 1. De Wette thinks that Tbfej, iii. 1., disturbs 
the connection of the second with the first part 3 : but it rather makes 
it the closer. Each section is in the form of a prophetic discourse, 
though it was not spoken as it now is. The three together form a 
united whole, marked by a certain uniformity of development. Each 
closes with a promise. The exordium contains a sublime theophany, 

1 Die Propheten des a. B., u. s. w. toL i. p. 327. note. 

- Einleit, ii. 2. p, 363. 3 Einleit. p 363. 

VOL. II. 3 Q 



962 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

the Lord descending from his dwelling-place to judge the nations of 
the earth, who approach to receive their sentence. Samaria shall 
fall, and Judah too shall suffer injury, (i. 6 — 16.) Judah shall 
be carried into captivity, to which is subjoined a promise of the 
reunion of the whole people, (ii.) Then follows an oracle respect- 
ing Jerusalem's destruction because of the wickedness of her rulers 
and counsellors (iii.) ; respecting the kingdom of Jehovah out of 
Zion embracing hereafter all nations; the restoration of the theo- 
cracy after the exile ; the Messiah and his times (iv. v.) ; Jehovah's 
controversy with his people, his reproof of their sins, and threatening 
them with punishment, his complaints of the corruption of their 
morals, the hope of the people in Jehovah, and a promise to them. 
(vi. vii.) The progression is seen in the fact that, in the first dis- 
course, it is announced to Judah that the deadly strokes which should 
fall upon Samaria would reach to the gates of Jerusalem ; in the 
second, the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, with the deporta- 
tion of the people to Babylon, are foretold in the strongest terms. 
In the first, the redemption of the covenant-people from their cala- 
mities, and victorious rise out of slavery, are promised (ii. 12. &c.) ; 
in the second, positive salvation in the appearance and glory of Mes- 
siah, (iv. and v.) The third discourse is hortatory, as well in its threat- 
enings as its promises. The organic partition of the book has been 
copiously shown by Caspari. 1 

From the unity of the composition we may infer that it originated 
under Hezekiah. As the worship of idols is severely censured (i. 5., 
v. 11 — 13., vi. 16.), the book was probably written before the solemn 
passover, which was succeeded by the extermination of idolatry 
throughout the entire land. (2 Chron. xxx. xxxi.) As Samaria, too, 
was not yet destroyed (i. 6. &c), it must be dated prior to the 
downfal of Israel, between 728 and 722 b. C. 

• If these observations be correct, it is useless to attempt any sepa- 
ration of particular prophecies uttered at different times. The whole 
was written in the time of Hezekiah as one continued piece. Hence 
it should not be assumed with Maurer and Hitzig, that the first two 
chapters were delivered before the fall of Samaria, the next three 
after it, and the remaining two still later. 

The following predictions contained in the book, were, or are to 
be, fulfilled. 

1. The destruction of the kingdom of Israel, which was ful- 
filled in the capture of Samaria by Shalmaneser. 2. The total 
destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and the continuance 
of the desolation for so long a time as that Zion will be like 
a field, and the temple-mountain a forest hill. (iii. 12., vii. 13.) 
3. The carrying away of the Jews to Babylon, (iv. 10, 11., vii. 7, 8. 
13.) 4. The return from captivity, the rebuilding of the city and 
temple, steadfastness in the worship of God, and the peaceful times 
under the Persian and Grecian dominions, (iv. 1 — 8., vii. 11. 14 — 

1 Ueber Micha den Morastbiten, u. s. w. p. 100. et segq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Micah. 963 

17.) 5. The victory of the Maccabees, (iv. 13.) 6. Zion is again 
the residence of a king. (iv. 8.) 7. A ruler proceeds from Bethlehem, 
of the race of David, (v. 1, 2.) Some of these events were foretold 
from 150 to 200 years prior to the time they happened ; others are 
still future ; others have been but partially fulfilled, and are now 
proceeding towards their completion. 1 

It is peculiar to Micah that in his Messianic prophecies he men- 
tions Bethlehem as the birth-place of the future Redeemer, (v. 1 — 4.) 
Of the Messianic future he has the loftiest and most adventurous 
hopes, depicting it in highly coloured strains. All enemies shall 
then lie prostrate in the dust ; and the nations stream to Jerusalem 
to pay their vows there, (iv. 1 — 8. 13., v. 1 — 8., vii. 11 — 17.) 

The style as well as the ideas of Micah are not unlike those 
of his contemporary Isaiah. In general he is clear and distinct, 
powerful and animated, in many cases bold and sublime. He is 
rich in comparisons and figures, in tropical expressions which are 
beautiful and elegant, in paronomasias and plays on words. What 
gives great animation to his discourse, is a certain particularising of 
things, and also the introduction of persons speaking. In two in- 
stances the dialogue form is employed, (vi. 1 — 8., vii. 14, 15.) He 
abounds in rapid transitions from threatenings to promises, and vice 
versa. The rhythm is full and forcible, but not so smooth or rounded 
as that of Joel and Amos. The parallelism is usually regular ; the 
diction pure and classical, but concise, and therefore difficult here and 
there. As to the spirit and character of the prophecies, they are pre- 
eminent in excellence. A deep moral earnestness pervades them. 
Humility, piety, trust in God breathe throughout. 2 

Dr. Hales has arbitrarily put together three passages in Micah, viz. 
v. 2., iii. 3., iv. 4., in the order now mentioned ; and having given 
his own version of the Hebrew, which is by no means good, and 
sometimes positively incorrect, has elaborated a Messianic prophecy 
which he supposes to be "the most important single prophecy in the 
Old Testament, and the most comprehensive, respecting the personal 
character of the Messiah, and his successive manifestation to the 
world. It carefully distinguishes his human nativity from his eternal 
generation ; foretels the rejection of the Israelites and Jews for a 
season, their final restoration, and the universal peace destined to 
prevail throughout the earth in the Regeneration. It forms therefore 
the basis of the New Testament," &c. &c. 3 

This and much more in the same strain is extravagant. We object 
to the arbitrary arrangement of the three passages, by which they are 
taken out of their own proper connections and put together as one 
prophecy. The words of v. 2. are quoted by the evangelist Matthew, 
and applied to the Messiah. They must therefore be descriptive of 
his person in one sense or other ; and we prefer to regard them as 
exclusively applicable to him ; for there is no good reason, with many 

1 See Jahn's Einleit. voL ii. p. 427. " Comp. Knobel's Prophetismus, ii. p. 206. 

3 Analysis of Chronology, vol. ii. book i. pp. 462, 463. 
3Q 2 



964 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Jews and Theodore of Mopsuesta, to interpret them of Zerubbabel 
alone ; or with Grotius, of Zerubbabel as a type of Christ, and so of 
Christ secondarily. The other two places are not fco clear in their 
application to the person of Messiah. Bethlehem is mentioned as 
His birth-place. Hales, however, is wrong in saying that the prophet 
carefully distinguishes Messiah's eternal generation from his human 
birth. The former he finds in the words, " whose goings forth have 
been from of old, from everlasting." That the eternal generation of 
Messiah is not meant by the Hebrew phrase "goings forth from of 
old," is apparent by a comparison of passages where D}£ Wtp occurs, 
(vii. 20. ; Isaiah xxiii. 7., xxxvii. 26.); and the use of the verb KVt 
with JP. All that is meant is the previous manifestations of Messiah 
under the old dispensation. 



CHAP. XXIX. 

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET NAHUM. 



Little is known of Nahum's personal history. He was a native of 
Elkosh, a village in Galilee. It would appear from ii. 1 — 3. that he 
prophesied in Judah respecting the destruction of Nineveh and the 
fall of the Assyrian empire, (i. 14., ii. 1. &c, 6. &c, iii. 1. &c.) 

Some think that, as there was an Assyrian Elkosh (Alkush) which 
lay on the east side of the Tigris, two miles north of Mosul and three 
hours from Nineveh ; it, and not the Galilean Elkosh, was the place 
of Nahum. So Michaelis, Eichhorn, Grimm, and Ewald suppose. 
But there is no good support for the opinion in question. No Is- 
raelite exiles, as far as we know, were carried thither by the Assy- 
rians ; and nothing in the language or contents of the book leads to 
the inference that the prophet was an exile. The time when Nahum 
prophesied has been variously datermined. 

(a.) Josephus places him under Jotham. 

(b.) Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Rosenmuller, De Wette, Gramberg, 
Knobel, Havernick, and Keil put him in the reign of Hezekiah. 

(c.) Jerome, Calov, Maius, Jaeger, assign the prophecy to the 
time of the invasion of Sennacherib. 

(d.) The Seder Olam, Jarchi, Abarbanel, Grotius, Grimm, and 
J aim specify the reign of Manasseh. 

(e.) Ewald, Hitzig, and Meier suppose that the prophecy belongs 
to the period of the later Median struggles with Assyria ; either the 
time of" Phraortes, or that of Cyaxares and his first invasion of 
Nineveh. 

It is evident that the prophet lived in the Assyrian period, for he 
addresses the king of the Assyrians and predicts the fall of Nineveh. 
The Assyrians at the time of the prophet had manifested hostility to 
Judah, they had meditated its destruction (i. 11.), they had come up 



On the Book of the Prophet Nahum. 965 

once against It (ii. 1.) ; but they should not be able to bring affliction 
upon it a second time (i. 9.). Judah had been compelled to hear the 
voice of their messengers (ii. 14.); they had humbled and put a yoke 
upon her (i. 12, 13.). These allusions can only be to Sennacherib's 
invasion of Judah, 714 B.C. ; for there was none other. It is well 
known that Sennacherib plundered Judea as far as Jerusalem, deso- 
lated the country (2 Kings xviii. 13., Isaiah xxxiii. 1. 8.), sent his 
messengers to demand the surrender of the metropolis, and imposed 
a tribute upon Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii. xix.). The mention of No- 
Ammon or Thebes in Upper Egypt, can scarcely be used as a date 
(hi. 8. &c), though Knobel so employs it, because Gesenius has 
shown that a conquest of Thebes by the Assyrians does not suit the 
context, since in that case the prophet would have expressed himself 
differently, and made the contrast prominent. 1 Hence we cannot, 
with Knobel, think of the Assyrian king Sargon as the destroyer of 
Thebes, 717 — 715 b. c. As the Assyrians were still powerful in the 
time of the prophet, and meditating plans against Judah (i. 9. 12.), 
being not completely humbled as yet, the prophet represents how a 
stronger and more powerful enemy would come against Nineveh 
and destroy the Assyrian power. This suits the time immediately 
after Sennacherib's invasion. We may think, either of the Baby- 
lonians as the enemies of the Assyrians alluded to ; or rather of the 
Medes, who freed themselves from the Assyrian dominion 711 B. c, 
and elected a king of their own. Hence Nahum belongs to about 
713 — 711 B. c, and was a younger contemporary of Isaiah. 

The whole book contains but one continuous oracle, and may be 
separated into three sections corresponding to the three chapters. In 
the first there is a sublime description of the justice and power of 
God, showing how terrible he is to his enemies ; and therefore the 
Assyrians will not escape destruction. The second chapter repre- 
sents Nineveh as besieged, conquered, notwithstanding all its re- 
sistance, and utterly destroyed, so as to become a lurking-place for 
lions. The third chapter shows how Nineveh suffers the merited 
and shameful fate of No- Amnion in spite of all her efforts to avert her 
doom. De Wette remarks, that in the last chapter the prophet draws 
his breath, as it were. 2 

The inscription or title consists of two parts, the burden of Nineveh 
and the book of the vision of Nahum the Elkoshite. It is not likely 
that the second was added by the same hand which wrote the first, as 
it does not exactly coincide with it. The second part, which is inde- 
pendent and complete of itself, appears to be the old, original title, 
standing at the commencement of the oracle. The first proceeded 
from a later hand, as has been perceived by Bertholdt, Ewald, and 
De Wette. Havernick indeed, followed by Keil, undertakes to defend 
its originality, but without success. He thinks that if the words in 
question had been wanting at first, the reader would have been de- 
prived of what was necessary to make the object of the threatenings 

1 See the Hallische Literatur-Zeitung for 1841, No. 1. &c. 

2 Einleitung, pp. 365, 366. 

3q 3 



966 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

in the first and second chapters intelligible r ; as if prophecies were 
usually plain and definite, or required the hand of the prophet at 
their commencement to point out their scope and tendency. 

Judging from the style and diction, Nahum must have had a rich 
and lively imagination. His figures are abundant and appropriate ; 
and his mode of writing characterised by freshness and graphic power. 
In this respect he is inferior to none of the prophets. In one case 
his fancy's flight is bold and sublime (i. 1 — 3.). In consequence of 
this fiery animation, he is hurried from one thing to another, without 
completing the portrait of what he touches upon. The rhythm 
is regular and lively; and though the parallelism is generally mea- 
sured, it is not so periodic or rounded as that of Amos. The lan- 
guage is classical throughout. 2 

The prophet is not devoid of originality, though several remi- 
niscences out of older writers may be detected. These are most nu- 
merous from Isaiah (comp. i. 4. with Isaiah 1. 2., xxxiii. 9. ; ii. 1. 
with Isaiah lii. 1. 7. ; ii. 11. with Isaiah xxii. 5., xxiv. 1., xxi. 3., and 
Joel ii. 6. ; iii. 4. &c. with Isaiah xlvii. 9.). Sometimes the words of 
the Pentateuch seem to have been in his mind (comp. i. 3. with 
Exod. xx. 5., xxxiv. 6., Numb. xiv. 17, 18.). But such slight allu- 
sions detract little from the originality of Nahum. His independent 
clearness and rhythmical roundness every reader discovers at once. 

Notwithstanding the general admission of the purity belonging to 
the prophet's language, Hitzig 3 has attempted to show that it has 
many peculiar features some of which indicate its lateness and its 
corrupt or Chaldaising character. Examples adduced are "1D?9, iii. 
17., which is not Semitic, but may be accounted for by the Syrian 
invasions ; "0», iii. 4., which occurs in the Arabic signification, to 
ensnare, but means rather to sell, and therefore has not the sense as- 
signed by Hitzig ; the Syriasms JHJ, ii. 8., "irn iii. 2., MVl?S, ii. 4., are 
explained by the Galilean origin of the prophet. According to 
Ewald 4 , itp, iii. 17., and 3¥r} are Assyrian words : but the former is 
doubtful ; and the sense assigned by him to the latter, as though it 
were the name of an Assyrian queen, is incorrect. Most of the 
proofs of later usage given by Hitzig resolve themselves into pa- 
rallels from Isaiah, and are therefore of no weight. 



CHAP. XXX. 

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET HABAKKUK. 

Nothing certain is known of the history of Habakkuk. Etymolo- 
gising Kabbins have absurdly combined his name with the words 

1 Einleit. ii. 2. p. 370. , * See Knobel's Prophetismus, ii. p. 214. 

2 Die zwblf Kleinen Propheten, p. 214. 4 Die Propheten, u. s. w. vol. i. p. 350. 






On the Book of the Prophet Ilabakkuk, 967 

addressed by Elisha to the woman of Shunem, " thou shalt embrace 
a son" (2 Kings iv. 16.), concluding that he was the son of this 
Shunemite. According to patristic accounts, he belonged to the 
tribe of Simeon, and was a native of Beth-zocher, or Bethsachar. 1 
By the same authorities it is said that, when Nebuchadnezzar came 
against Jerusalem in the time of Zedekiah, to destroy it, the prophet 
fled to Ostracine, a city that lay on the borders, between Egypt, 
Arabia, and Palestine ; but returned, after the withdrawal of the 
Chaldeans and the emigration of the Jews into Egypt, to his native 
place, where he followed husbandry, and died two years before the 
return of the exiles from Babylon. His pretended grave was after- 
wards pointed out in Ce'ila, i. e. Kegila, a place in the territory 
of Judah. These accounts can only be regarded as apocryphal. 

It may be inferred from the subscription, iii. 19., "to the chief 
singer on my stringed instruments," that he was of the tribe of Levi ; 
and it has been farther supposed by Delitzsch 2 , that he was officially 
connected with the efforts made to improve the liturgical temple- 
music, and must therefore have been a priest. This is favoured by 
the fact that his prophecy bears the impress of a psalm-like composi- 
tion more than any other, resembling in its materials the Psalms 
generally, especially those of David and Asaph. The same critic 
refers in confirmation of this view to the inscription prefixed to the 
Apocryphal story of Bel and the Dragon in the LXX. ; " of the pro- 
phecy of Habakkuk the son of Jesus, of the tribe of Levi." 
Opinions are divided as to the time when the prophet lived, 
(a.) Some suppose that he prophesied in the time of Manasseh. 
Of this opinion are the Rabbins in Seder Olam, Witsius, Buddeus, 
Carpzov, Wahl, Kofod, Jahn, Havernick. 

(b.) Vitringa, Delitzsch, Kueper, and Keil, think that he lived in 
the reign of Josiah. The last writer fixes upon 650 — 627 B.C., or 
the first twelve years of that monarch. 

(c.) Stickel, Jaeger, Knobel, Maurer, Ewald, Baumlein, De 
Wette, Hamaker, Ussher, place him in the time of Jehoiakim. 

(e£.) Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Justi, Wolf, and others, place him in 
the time when Judah was desolated by the Chaldeans. In this case, 
the prophecy is, for the most part, a vaticinium post eventum. 

One thing is certain, that he either belongs to the Chaldean period, 
or lived very near its commencement, since his discourse centres in 
that people, who are even mentioned by name. (i. 6.) The manner 
in which the prophet speaks of the Chaldeans leads to this conclusion. 
Their power appears as one that is beginning to be formidable : 
Jehovah raises up a bitter nation, which shall march through the 
land and take possession, and is therefore about to perform an 
incredible work in the days of that generation, (i. 5, 6.) Judah is 
threatened, but had not yet been attacked, (i. 12., iii. 2. 16.) The 
description of the Chaldeans generally is of such a nature as to show 
that they were yet little known to the Jews. (i. 5 — 11.) Those who 

1 See Pseudepiphanius de proph. cap. 18. ; Dorotheus ; Isidorus. 

2 Der Prophet Habakuk ausgelegt, p. iii. and 204. et seqq. 

3 q 4 



968 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

bring down the prophecy later than Jehoiakim, commonly refer to 
the third chapter, in which some find the time of the siege of Jeru- 
salem, when Zedekiah was taken and his eyes put out, the walls 
broken down, and the temple burnt. But these particulars are not 
referred to in the chapter ; and the 16th verse represents the enemy 
as coming. Still we cannot, with many, place the prophet in the 
reign of Jehoiakim before the battle of Carchemish (Jer. xlvi. 2.), 
because certain particulars lead to a prior date. The invasion of the 
Chaldeans is represented in i. 5, 6. as a thing unexpected and in- 
credible. Yet it was to happen in the days of that generation 
(D^D'a, in your days). We do not say with Delitzsch l 3 that the 
word so translated proves the terminus a quo of the prophecy to be 
twenty years before the first invasion of Sennacherib, because of its 
use in Jer. xvi. 9., Ezek. xii. 25., since it is relative, and should 
not be urged in rhetorical discourse, as Keil 2 appositely remarks ; 
but it intimates at least a prior time to 606 — 604 B.C., when Nebu- 
chadnezzar's coming was expected and feared. And on comparing 
Hab. ii. 13. with Jer. li. 58., we see that the one passage is 
taken from the other ; the former being the original, as Kueper has 
proved. In like manner there is a similarity between Jer. iv. 13. 
and Hab. i. 8. ; Jer. v. 6. 15. and Hab. i. 8. 6,, which manifests 
the use of the latter in the former. It would also appear from ii. 20. 
compared with Zephaniah i. 7., that Habakkuk prophesied shortly 
before Zephaniah. Hence he belongs to the reign of Josiah, and 
before the twelfth year of it when idolatry was abolished and the 
Avorship of Jehovah restored; since we learn from iii. 19. that the 
third chapter presupposes the liturgical songs of the temple. Ac- 
cordingly, he may be placed before the thirteenth year of Josiah, i. e. 
650 — 627 B.C. This was just before the commencement of the 
Chaldean period. 

The prophecy has a dramatic form. Habakkuk asks in a com- 
plaining tone ; and the Divine answer is threatening. The subject 
is, the fearful judgment impending over the theocracy, on account of 
prevailing moral corruption, from the hand of the Chaldeans, (ch. i.) 
The second chapter announces the downfal of this proud, insolent, 
and idolatrous enemy. The third contains the ansAver of the be- 
lieving church to this twofold revelation. It is a lyrical echo of the 
impressions and feelings which these two revelations had awakened 
in the bosom of the prophet, as compared with the wonderful 
Avorks of the Almighty in the past. The form of a dialogue between 
God and the prophet is nowhere else so fully carried out as here. 
Nor is prophecy so intimately united with lyrical poetry in other 
productions, as in the present. Indeed, Habakkuk is far more inde- 
pendent of other prophets, both in contents and form, than any of his 
fellow-prophets, except Isaiah. The best period of prophecy is 
reflected in his oracle. Here prophetic poesy appears to enter into 
close communion Avith the Deity and lay hold of His strength, as 

1 Der Prophet Habakuk ausgelegt, p. vii. 

2 Einleitung, pp. 347, 348. 3 Jeremias librorum sacr. interpres, pp. 75, 76. 



On the Book of the Prophet Zephaniah. 969 

though it would not let Him go, in order to revive in the careless 
people the spirit of a decaying piety. In consequence of the lyric 
character of this oracle, both in form and contents, various places 
resemble some of the older psalms and odes. This is most apparent 
in the reproduction of Psalms lxxvii. 15 — 20. and lxviii. 8, 9., in 
Hab. iii. In like manner, Deut. xxxiii. 2., Judges v. 4, 5. are 
imitated. 

It is unnecessary at the present day to allude to the mistaken 
procedure of those critics who, like Kalinsky, Bertholdt, Friederich, 
Horst, Rosenmuller, &c. divide the prophecy into separate parts 
which are assigned to different times ; whereas it is an organic 
whole. 

The manner and style of the prophet are excellent. He writes 
with extraordinary fire and animation. His representations are lively 
and fresh ; his prosopopoeias bold ; his figures and comparisons highly 
appropriate as well as natural. Everywhere we discern the loftiness 
of his imagination. The theophany in the third chapter shows un- 
common sublimity and boldness, having nothing equal to it in the 
Old Testament. The rhythm is full and powerful, yet equable and 
smooth ; and the parallelism is even and rounded. The diction is 
pure and classical. Habakkuk on the whole resembles Joel most. 
The strophical arrangement of ii. 6 — 20. has been noticed by various 
critics. 1 

Michaelis has remarked 2 , that Habakkuk is a great imitator of 
former poets, though with some new additions of his own ; not, how- 
ever, in the manner of Ezekiel, but with much greater brevity, and 
with no common degree of sublimity. This judgment, however, is 
incorrect. The prophet is one of the most original. 



CHAP. XXXI. 

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET ZEPHANIAH. 

All that is known of Zephaniah's personal history is what the title 
states, viz. that he was the son of Cushi, the son of Gedaliah, the 
son of Amariah, the son of Hizkiah. There is no parallel to this 
genealogy in the case of any other prophet ; and therefore it has been 
inferred that his family was distinguished. The same phenomenon 
has led various critics to identify Hizkiah with king Hezekiah. We 
see nothing improbable in this assumption ; though Jahn, Rosen- 
mliller, and Knobel have objected to it on grounds which are on the 
whole precarious. No reliance can be placed on the apocryphal 

1 See Knobel, vol ii. pp. 297, 298. 

* Notes to Lowth on Hebrew Poetry, p. 401. Stowe's edition. 



970 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

account that Zephaniah was of the tribe of Simeon, and the territory 
Sabarthata or Sarabath. He prophesied in the days of Josiah, as 
the inscription states ; which date is confirmed by the contents of 
the book itself. 

At what specific time in the reign of Josiah Zephaniah prophesied, 
is matter of debate. Whether he should be placed before or after 
the eighteenth year of that king is somewhat uncertain. It is evi- 
dent that, in addition to the worship of Jehovah (iii. 4, 5.), the 
remnant of Baal and other idolatrous rites had not been abolished 
(i. 4, 5.). The prophet also expects the destruction of Nineveh 
(ii. 13.). This leads to the time between the twelfth and eighteenth 
years of Josiah's reign, after that monarch had begun the work of 
reformation, and before it was completed. (2 Chron. xxxiv. 3. 8.) If 
in addition to the regular (iii. 4.) there were also idol-priests (t3**iS?> 
Cemarims, i. 4.) ; if the worship of Baal and the host of heaven was 
still continued in public (i. 4, 5.), while we know that Josiah caused 
all the vessels made for Baal, and for the grove, and for all the host 
of heaven, to be brought out of the temple and burned, putting down 
the idolatrous priests (2 Kings xxiii. 4,5.); the religious reformation 
commenced by that pious king could not have been completed. » 

The principal thing relied upon by those who place the prophet 
after the eighteenth year of Josiah, as Carpzov, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, 
and Delitzsch do, is the mention of " the king's children " in i. 8., 
according to which it is thought that the two eldest sons of Josiah 
must have already grown up and exhibited an evil disposition. But 
this hardly follows, since the threatening merely represents the uni- 
versality of the judgment about to befal all ranks, even the highest. 
And the sons of Josiah's ■predecessors may be referred to ; as there is 
nothing to restrict them to himself. Knobel l and others also try to 
show that no weight belongs to the expression ?£2n ~\W, the remnant 
of Baal in i. 4., but unsuccessfully. Other considerations in favour 
of the later date have been refuted by Strauss 2 and Havernick. 3 

The year of Nineveh's destruction foretold by the prophet is usually 
placed in 625 B.C., and there is no reason for departing from the date; 
for the accounts of Herodotus respecting Cyaxares are insufficient au- 
thority in favour of 605 or 597 B.C. Hence we disagree with Delitzsch 
in his attempt to unsettle the usual date. 4 Abydenus, Alexander Poly- 
histor, and Berosus, are more favourable to 625 B.C. On the whole, 
the prophet belongs to about 627 B.C. 

Some divide the book into three prophetic discourses, compre- 
hending the three chapters respectively. De Wette and Strauss 
make two ; viz. chapters i. ii., and iii. It is better, however, 
with Ewald, Meier, and Havernick, to regard the book as con- 
taining a single prophecy, since it begins with a threatening of 
judgment upon all the ungodly and violent (chap, i.), and termi- 
nates with the promise of future salvation to the believing (iii. 9. &c). 

1 Prophetismus, vol. ii. p. 249. 

2 Vaticinia Zephanjse commentar. illustrat. p. riii. et seqq. 

3 Einleit. ii. 2. p. 396. 4 Der Prophet Habakuk, p. xviii. 



On the Booh of the Prophet Zephaniah. 971 

Exhortations to repentance, and promises of deliverance to such as 
turn to Jehovah, lie between (chap. ii.). The eighth verse of the 
third chapter shows that it should not be separated from the second. 
The prophecy is of a general character. We may therefore sup- 
pose that it contains a summary of Zephaniah's ministry ; and was 
written for the purpose of giving the result. In consequence of the 
idolatry and iniquities prevailing in the kingdom of Judah, he pro- 
claims the approaching day of Jehovah's wrath to the impenitent 
people ; not only to Judah and Jerusalem, but also to all neighbour- 
ing and distant nations, as a warning to obstinate transgressors, and 
a means of improving such as were penitent; concluding with a pro- 
mise of the Messianic salvation arising upon the pious remnant who 
should survive the judicial process. Generally speaking, the first 
chapter is a denunciation against Judah for their idolatry ; the first 
three verses of the second speak of repentance as the only means of 
escaping the divine vengeance ; the remainder of that chapter, with 
the first eight verses of the third, proclaims approaching destruction 
to all enemies of the Jews ; while chapter iii. 9 — 20. shows the ulti- 
mate prosperous state of the church. 

The desolation of the corrupt and idolatrous city is commonly sup- 
posed to be that threatened, and afterwards accomplished, by the 
Chaldeans. When Zephaniah prophesied, the Chaldean power began 
to be formidable and menacing to all the nations. But some think 
that an invasion of the Scythians is referred to, who, according to 
Herodotus *, made an expedition as far as Egypt, in the time of 
Psammetichus. Against this view, however, it may be urged that 
where Jeremiah speaks of the same enemies (iv. — vi.), the Chaldeans 
are undoubtedly meant ; so that although Zephaniah does not name 
them (i. 7., iii. 15.), the Chaldeans, not the Scythians, are intended. 
Besides, the narrative of Herodotus leaves it doubtful whether that 
invasion of the Scythians touched Judah ; and the plundering and 
destruction of Jerusalem, as well as of the other cities, does not suit 
the Scythians, who plundered the lands only and carried off the 
booty like hordes of wild barbarians. The other peoples to whom 
disaster is foretold are the Philistines (ii. 4 — 7.), the Ammonites and 
Moabites (ii. 8 — 11.), the Ethiopians (ii. 12.), and the Assyrians 
(ii. 13— 15.). 2 

The general manner and style of Zephaniah are not remarkable 
for excellence. He rather occupies an intermediate place between 
the highest and the lowest ; resembling Jeremiah most. He is not 
destitute of liveliness, and is often graphic in details ; nor is he want- 
ing in figures and tropical expressions which are appropriate and 
partly original. He has also paronomasias and plays on words. He 
is not, however, an original prophet ; for most of his ideas partake of 
the character of reminiscences out of the earlier ones, as a comparison 
of the following places will show : — i. 7. with Hab. ii. 20., Joel i. 15. 
iv. 14., Isaiah xxxiv. 6. and xiii. 3.; i. 13. with Amos v. 11.; i. 14. 
&c. with Joel ii. 1, 2. ; i. 16. with Amos ii. 2. ; i. 18. with Isaiah x. 

1 Lib. i. 105. 2 See Strauss's Vaticinia Zephanjse, &c. p. xviii. et seqq. 



972 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

23. and xxviii. 22.; ii. 8. 10. with Isaiah xvi. 6. and Amos i. 13.; 
ii. 14. with Isaiah xiii. 21. &c. xxxiv. 11.; ii. 15. with Isaiah xlvii. 
8. 10. ; iii. 10. with Isaiah xviii. 1. 7. ; iii. 11. with Isaiah xiii. 3. ; 
iii. 19. with Micah iv. 6, 7. 1 There is also little of the poetic spirit 
in Zephaniah; and, therefore, though the parallelism is sometimes 
regular, yet it is often unattained in consequence of the language 
sinking down into prose, having no living rhythm to keep it up. The 
diction is pure and easy. 



CHAP. XXXII. 

THE BOOK OF THE FROPHET HAGGAI. 



According to patristic accounts Haggai belonged to the exiles who 
returned to their native land with Joshua and Zerubbabel. He 
appeared in the second year of the Persian king Darius Hystaspes 
(i. 1.), or in the sixteenth year after the return from captivity (520 
B. a). The building of the temple had begun in the reign of Cyrus ; 
but had been interrupted under his successors, Cambyses and Pseudo- 
Smerdis, through unfavourable representations of the Samaritans. 
Haggai had induced Darius to cancel the decree of his predecessor 
on the throne, which forbad the building of the temple ; and, sup- 
ported by his fellow-prophet Zechariah, stirred up the people to 
resume the undertaking. (Ezra v. 1., vi. 14.) He blamed the Jews 
that while they built stately houses for themselves they left the 
temple unfinished (i. 4. 9.), for which reason Jehovah punished them 
with drought and scarcity, and exhorted them to continue the work 
which had been neglected, as the favourable time for doing so had 
arrived. Accordingly Zerubbabel and Joshua set themselves in 
earnest to the task, along with the people ; and the prophet succeeded 
in maintaining the zeal of the builders by his encouragements and 
promises, as well as the development of bright prospects in relation 
to the new temple ; so that the house of the Lord was finished in 
six years. According to the Talmud he was a member of the great 
synagogue ; but the existence of that body is doubted by many. It 
is not improbable, as Ewald conjectures 2 , that he was one of the few 
referred to by himself (ii. 3.), who had seen the first temple. The 
Pseudo-Epiphanius relates that Haggai was buried at Jerusalem 
among the priests ; whence some have thought that he was of the 
family of Aaron. This is uncertain. 

The book contains four prophecies concerning the same subject, the 
building of the temple. They are connected by time and contents. 
What relation they bear to his oral discourses it is impossible to tell ; 

1 See Kueper's Jeremias, &c. pp. 138. 153. ; Strauss's Vaticinia Zephanjte com- 
mcntar. illustr. &c. p. xxviii.; and Delitzsch's Habakuk, p. viii. 

2 Die Propheten, u. s. w. vol. ii. p. 516. 



On the Book of the Prophet Haggai. 973 

but it may be conjectured that they present the substance of all that he 
had prophesied. And they must have been written down soon after oral 
delivery. In the first, the prophet reproves the indifference of the people 
respecting the building of the temple, which neglect he assigns as 
the reason why they were punished with great drought and unpro- 
ductive seasons. He then exhorts them to undertake the work, and 
encourages them with the promise of divine aid. (chapter i.) The 
second brief discourse consists of a consolatory promise that the glory 
of the second temple should surpass that of the first, (ii. 1 — 9.) The 
third censures the outward and legal righteousness prevailing among 
the people, by means of which they were deprived of the divine 
blessing, (ii. 10 — 19.) The fourth contains a promise of the future 
glorification awaiting the royal offspring of David, Zerubbabel, after 
the downfal of all earthly thrones. Here the Messianic kingdom is 
obviously intended. 

The prophecies in question are addressed to the civil governor 
Zerubbabel and to the high priest Joshua (i. 1. 12., ii. 2. 21.); and 
occupy the course of three months (i. 1., ii. 1. 10. 20.). The pro- 
mises of Haggai, viz. that God will shortly shake all nations, and 
compel them to contribute to the glory of the temple, and that 
Zerubbabel shall be God's chosen servant, are peculiar. It is diffi- 
cult to tell what view the prophet had of the Messianic time. Per- 
haps he expected the restoration of the theocracy very soon. And 
why did contemporary prophets make Zerubbabel the new theocratic 
ruler ? Was it because he was zealous for the welfare of the theo- 
cracy ? Did they really think that he was to be head of the restored 
and renovated state — the visible representative of Messiah in the new 
kingdom ? We do not think so. Looking upon him as a type of 
Messiah, Haggai passes at once from the type to the antitype, giving 
the name of the former to the latter. He expected this new and 
higher Zerubbabel to appear shortly. The time is not specified be- 
cause it Avas unknown to him. With these sentiments we should 
not say with Schumann, that the prophet's view of the Messianic 
time was confused ! ; or with Sharpe 2 , that " Haggai's promises rise 
no higher than that foreigners shall send ornaments to the temple, 
and that prince Zerubbabel shall be God's chosen servant." It was 
defective ; but right as far as it went. 

As the contents are brief and scanty, it must be supposed that his 
prophecies were longer as delivered orally. It is strange, however, 
that they do not appear to have gained force or power by compres- 
sion ; for their tameness is in proportion to their brevity. No distin- 
guishing excellence belongs to them. The views promulgated by 
the prophet do not partake of a high religious or ethical character. 
Having the common Jewish view of earthly retribution, he lays 
great stress on the restoration of the temple and its worship. The 
motive by which he encourages the people is taken from the present 

1 Schumann's Introduction translated, p. 163. 

2 Historic Notes on the Old and New Testaments, p. 176. 



974 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

life. The style and general manner are destitute of poetic power 
and life. The composition is flat prose, showing a decline in the 
inspiration of the prophets. Favourite formulas are : consider or lay 
to your heart, -1»^ 0553^ (i. 5. 7.,ii. 15. 18.); thus saith the Lord oj 
hosts, rri&oy T\)T\\ DN; (ii. 4. 9. 23.) ; Zerubbabel, Joshua, and the rem- 
nant of the people (i. 12. 14., ii. 2. 4.); frequent interrogatories (i. 4. 9., 
ii. 3. 12, 13. 19.). He is on the whole unrhythmical; though often 
employing parallelism, as in i. 6. 9, 10., ii. 6. 8. 22. 1 

It is often said that Haggai, treating of the advent of Messiah, em- 
phatically terms him " the desire of all nations." (ii. 7.) Thus Thomas 
Scott writes, " At the appointed time, He, e the desire of all nations,' 
whom all nations ought to desire, and in due time would desire ; He, 
in whom all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, and of whose 
coming a general expectation would prevail, as of some most desirable 
event," &c. &c. Even Jablonski, in the margin of his Hebrew Bible, 
puts the words " Messiamque adventurum, desiderium gentium ;" and 
the Vulgate, agreeing with this view, has desideratus veniet, the person 
desired shall come. But the original Hebrew is opposed to this inter- 
pretation. In it the verb come is plural, and the noun desire singular. 
Some render, " the desirable things of all nations shall come," i. e. the 
precious things or treasures of all nations shall be brought into the 
temple. This interpretation is advocated at length by Jahn 2 , and 
adopted by De Wette. But it is liable to exception ; for in that 
case the construct state ceases to be an adjective-description of the 
latter substantive, and requires another substantive than the noun 
following. It is also more probable that 73, all, would have stood 
before the construct state. To the noun rendered desire we have a 
synonymous • one, ""IH3P, in Isaiah xxii. 7., Exod. xv. 4. Accordingly 
.we render the word desire, with Ewald and Hitzig, the choicest or 
noblest, with which the LXX. coincide, ra skXskto, irdvTav twv 
sOvoiv, the choice of all the nations. All the nations are represented as 
fearing ; but only the best of them as giving honour to God. Accord- 
ing to this interpretation, an objection advanced against the meaning 
the desirable things of all the nations shall come, viz. an impropriety in 
the verb come, when it should rather be brought, is obviated. It is 
certainly unphilological to take the noun desire with the plural verb 
come, to designate the Messiah. 

1 See Knobel, ii. p. 380. 

2 Einleit. in die Bticher des alten Eundes, vol. ii. pp. 661, 662., and Enchiridion 
Hermeneuticae generalis, p. 52. 



On the Book of the Prophet Zechariah. 975 

CHAP. XXXIII. 

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET ZECHARIAH. 

Zechariah calls himself the son of Berechlah, and grandson of Iddo 
the prophet. This is the proper meaning of the words, " the son of 
Berechiah, the son of Iddo the prophet." Some, however, think that 
Iddo was not the grandfather, but the father, of Zechariah. So the 
LXX. and Jerome translate ; and so several of the Fathers under- 
stand the words. This is owing to Ezra v. 1. and vi. 14., where 
the prophet is named " Zechariah the son of Iddo." In order to re- 
concile the two assertions, it has been thought that the father's name 
is omitted in Ezra, and that of the grandfather, as the better- 
known person, given. We shall afterwards furnish a better reason than 
this. In the first verse the word prophet must belong to Zechariah, 
not to Iddo, as Jerome understood it. And Iddo is the person men- 
tioned in Neh. xii. 4., as one of the sacerdotal priests who had 
returned from Babylon with Joshua and Zerubbabel. Like Jere- 
miah and Ezekiel he belonged to a priestly family, and came to 
Judea with the returning exiles from Babylon where he was born. 
As a prophet, he appeared at the same time with Haggai, only two 
months later ; and is mentioned, under the high priest Joiakim, as 
the head of a family among the priests (Neh. xii. 16.). It would 
appear from an expression in ii. 4., that he was a young man when 
called to the prophetic ministry. He attached himself to the older 
Haggai, continuing the work begun, applying the word of former 
prophets to his own time, and promoting the development of the 
theocracy by threatening and promise. As his grandfather was one 
of the exiles that returned with Zerubbabel, and Zechariah opened 
his prophetic commission in the second year of Darius, i. e. the eigh- 
teenth year after the return, when he was still a youth (*1D2, ii. 4.) ; 
he must have left Babylon in childhood. Hence the patristic ac- 
counts in the Pseudo-Epiphanius, Dorotheus, and Isidore, which 
represent him as advanced in years when he came from Chaldea, 
must be incorrect. The beginning of his official career coincides 
with b. c. 520. 

The book of Zechariah, as it now is, may be divided into two parts, 
viz. chapters i. — viii. and ix. — xiv. These again may be subdivided 
as follows : 1. A series of visions revealed to the prophet on the night 
of the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month, in the second year of 
Darius Hystaspes (i. 7.). To this series of visions the revelation 
received in the eighth month of the second year forms an introduction 
i. 1 — 6. (chapters i. — vi.) 2. A discourse characterised by admoni- 
tion and promise, occasioned by a question of the people's addressed 
to the Lord. (vii. viii.) 3. A discourse apparently descriptive of the 
contest between the powers of the world and the theocracy, the vic- 
tory of the latter, and complete subjugation of the former by the 
manifestation of Messiah, (ix. — xi.) 4. Another discourse representing 



976 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

the final attack of the powers of the world on Jerusalem, the con- 
version of Israel to Messiah put to death by the sins of the people, 
the downfal cf the old theocracy, the destruction of all enemies who 
strive against God, with the ultimate completion and glorification of 
the divine kingdom. 1 

Let us look at the contents of the first part a little more par- 
ticularly. After the introduction, in which the people are exhorted 
to repentance, we have the first vision, — a rider on a red horse among 
the myrtle trees, symbolising that, though there is general peace 
throughout the states connected with Judea, the Jews are still in 
affliction on account of their city and temple, and therefore the time 
is favourable for the fulfilment of Jehovah's promises to his people. 
The second vision consists of four horns, and four carpenters who 
break the hoi'ns in pieces. The horns symbolise the heathen enemies 
of Judah on every side, north, south, east, and west; the carpenters 
are emblems of the destruction of the hostile powers, and are called 
four, simply out of correspondence to the four horns ; not because 
four persons are meant, as Calmet erroneously supposed. The third 
vision consists of a man with a measuring line taking the dimensions 
of the city, signifying that there should be great increase and pros- 
perity to Jerusalem, especially when the Gentiles should be incor- 
porated with the theocracy under the reign of Messiah. The fourth 
vision represents the high priest Joshua standing before the angel of 
the Lord, with Satan at his right hand to resist him, representing the 
despicable, forlorn, defiled state of the Jewish people, and the for- 
given, renewed state of the same, especially of the church under 
Messiah, of whom both Joshua and Zerubbabel were types. The fifth 
vision consists of a golden candlestick, with a bowl and seven pipes, 
fed by two olive trees on the right and left sides respectively, inti- 
mating that the Holy Spirit should remove all obstacles in the way 
of the restoration of the temple and worship, so that the work should 
be brought to a successful issue; and at the same time the final, 
complete establishment of Christ's church by the power of the 
Holy Spirit surmounting all obstacles. The sixth vision consists of 
a large flying roll filled with curses, representing the quickness and 
certainty with which transgressors of the divine law, those breaking 
either the first table (the false-swearer) or the second (the thief), would 
be punished. The seventh vision consists of an ephah with a woman in 
the midst of it, carried through the air by two female figures with 
stork-like wings ; the woman, whose name is wickedness, and whose 
mouth is stopped with lead, being carried away to Babylon. Sin, 
here personified as a woman, or rather the idolatry of the mass of the 
nation, is purged away, transported to Babylon as its home. The 
eighth vision consists of four chariots issuing from between two 
mountains of copper, drawn by horses of different colours, and repre- 
sents the swiftness as well as the extent of the divine judgments 
against the enemies of the theocracy. The ninth is rather a prophecy 
than a vision, in which the prophet is commanded to place a double 

1 See Keil's Einleitung, p. 358. 



On the Book of the Prophet Zechariah. 977 

crown on the head of Joshua the high priest, showing primarily the 
re- establishment of the civil and religious polity of the Jews under 
Zerubbabel and Joshua, but principally the royal and priestly dig- 
nity of him whom they typified, of the Branch, who was to be both 
king and high-priest of his church. An attendant angel explains to 
the prophet (though only in part) the preceding visions and scenes. 

The seventh and eighth chapters are not a collection of four oracles, 
but a single discourse delivered in the fourth year of the reign of 
Darius. Some Jews having been sent to Jerusalem from the exiles 
at Babylon to inquire of the priests and prophets, whether they were 
still bound to observe the fasts that had been instituted on account of 
the destruction of Jerusalem, the prophet was commanded to enforce 
upon them the necessity of judgment and mercy, lest the same pun- 
ishment should overtake them as had befallen their fathers. God 
promised to restore Jerusalem in his favour ; encouraged them to 
the building ; and permitted them to discontinue the observance of 
the fasts they had kept during the captivity, good works being sub- 
stituted instead. 

Under the second general division, ix. — xiv., the first discourse 
(ix. — xi.) contains a prophecy against Syria, the Philistines, Tyre and 
Sidon, which were to be conquered by Alexander the Great, and of 
the watchful providence of God over his temple in those troublous 
times (ix. 1 — 8.), the advent of Messiah, the restoration of the Jews 
to the divine favour, their victory over their enemies, particularly of 
the Maccabean princes over the princes of the Grecian monarchy 
(ix. 9 — 17.). The promise of future plenty, at the close of the last 
chapter, suggests mention of the means by which it should be pro- 
cured, — supplication to Jehovah, and not to idols. Restoration to 
their own land is farther promised, victory over their enemies, and 
much prosperity, (x. 1 — 12.) The destruction of Jerusalem and the 
Jewish polity are predicted ; after which the prophet relates the 
manner in which he discharged his office, and the little value set 
upon his labours. After he had broken the two staves, to denote the 
annulling of God's covenant with them, he is directed to take the 
instruments of a foolish shepherd, in order to express the judgments 
which God was about to inflict on them by wicked rulers. In another 
view, the prophet here predicts the rejection of the Jews for their 
contempt of Messiah and valuing him and his labours at the low 
price of thirty pieces of silver, (xi. 1 — 17.) The second discourse 
(xii. — xiv,) relates chiefly to the future condition of the people in 
Messianic times, the siege of Jerusalem; God's miraculous power 
displayed on behalf of his people ; the twilight breaking into day, 
denoting the light of the glorious gospel issuing from Jerusalem ; and 
living waters issuing from the same city, representing the great in- 
crease and prosperity of the theocratic metropolis or Christian church, 
when God's name should be honoured in everything, and his worship 
become universal. The last chapters (xii. — xiv.) are very obscure ; and 
it is difficult to tell whether they relate wholly or in part to the 
Christian church. Whether they allude to past events connected 
with Judea and Jerusalem, or events yet to come in the history of the 

VOL. II. 3 R 



978 Introduction to the Old Testament, 

Holy Land; whether they describe what is wholly past, or wholly 
future, or partly the one and the other ; how far they relate to the 
Jews and how far to Christians, are questions exceedingly per- 
plexing. 

The authenticity of the last part (ix. — xiv.) has been disputed. 
Mede, Whiston, Kidder, Hammond, Seeker, JNTewcome, ascribed it 
in part or wholly to Jeremiah. In Germany these chapters were 
also disunited from Zechariah by Doederlein, Fliigge, Michaelis, 
Corrodi, Bertholdt, Eichhorn, Bauer, Forberg, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, 
Hitzig, Knobel, Ewald, Meier, Bleek, Paulus, Gramberg, Credner. 
Pye Smith and Davidson took a similar view. On the other 
hand, their authenticity has been defended by Carpzov, Jahn, Beck- 
haus, Koester, Hengstenberg, Burger, Herbst, Havernick, Blayney, 
and Keil. 

The following is a summary of the arguments on both sides. In 
favour of the authenticity are alleged : — 

1. The position of the section, and its connection with the un- 
doubtedly authentic Avri tings of Zechariah. How came the collectors 
of the canon to place these chapters just in their present place, if they 
be spurious? 

2. The language and style lead to the inference that they pro- 
ceeded from a post-exile period, not only considered in themselves, 
but as compared with the first part. The language is characterised 
by a sort of purity acquired in the artificial way of learning, as in 
the first part. Though the author strives as much as possible to 
attain to this purity, he betrays himself by some later forms and 
expressions. To this head belongs the scriptio plena in TH, constantly 
observed. P)-"!?*? is used in an enlarged sense of Israelitish princes, in 
the earlier books only of the Edomitish ones. The word Xbo (xii. 1.) 
stands for prophecy generally, whereas in older speech it is only 
applied to threatening prophecies. A later Aramaean word is ?rn, 
xi. 8. The phrase fl#j3 K?P is younger, instead of the older iiB>j5 sp*. 
(ix. 13.) 

To both parts are common the rare expression 3K>»-1 "Q'yb, vii. 14., 
ix. 8. ; T 1 ?^., in the sense of remove, iii. 4., xiii. 2., the symbolical 
designation of divine Providence by eyes of God, iii. 9., iv. 10., ix. 
1. 8. ; the uniform peculiarity of paraphrasing the whole by its parts, 
v. 4., xiii. 1.3.; the description of the theocracy by the house of 
Judah and Israel, or Ephraim, or Joseph, i. 12., ii. 2. 16., viii. 15., 
ix. 13., x. 6., xi. 14. Still farther, the analogous places ii. 14., ix. 
9 ; the very similar turn in ii. 13. 15. to xi. 11. ; the like manner in 
viii. 14. and xiv. 5. ; and the Chaldaisms toy for i"Q¥, ix. 8., HD&n 
for nm, xiv. 10. &c. &c. should be noticed. 1 

3. In both divisions there is a leaning upon former, and in 
part very late prophets, a fact which agrees with the post-exile 
time. Comp. iii. 8. and vi. 12. with Isa. iv. 2., Jer. xxiii. 5. and 
xxxiii. 15. ; iii. 10. with Micah iv. 4. ; vi. 13. with Psalm ex. 4. ; 
vii. 14. and ix. 8. with Ezek. xxxv. 7. ; xi. 3. with Jer. xii. 5., 

1 Havernick's Einleit. ii. 2. p. 420. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Zechariah. 979 

xlix. L9., 1. 44. ; ix. 10. with Psalm lxxii. 8. ; xiii. 2. with Hosea 
ii. 19.; xi. 4, 5. with Jer. 1. 6, 7.; ix. 5. with Zeph. ii. 4.; xi. 
4. with Ezek. xxxiv. 4. ; xiii. 8, 9. with Ezek. v. 12. ; xiv. 8. 
with Ezek. xlvii. 1 — 12.; xiv. 10, 11. with Jer. xxxi. 38 — 40.; 
xiv. 20, 21. with Ezek. xliii. 12., xliv. 9. ; xiv. 16—19. with Isa. 
lxvi. 23. and lx. 12. 1 

4. A series of historical references attest the authenticity. Thus 
the exile is presupposed as past in x. 6., ix. 13. The mention of 
Javan as the representative of the anti-theocratic worldly powers rests 
on the prophecies of Daniel (viii. 5. &c. 21. &c.) respecting the 
relation of the Greek-Macedonian monarchy to the theocracy. In 
xii. 11. the death of Josiah is supposed to be past. Nowhere is a 
king mentioned, but only the heads of the people generally ; and the 
Davidic family is spoken of (xii. 7, 8. 12., xiii. 1.), not as a reigning 
one, but as again to be elevated to distinction in the future. To the 
same conclusion it is thought that the prominence given to priests 
and Levites (xii. 12, 13.), to the feast of tabernacles (xiv. 16. com- 
pared with Ezra hi. 4., JSTeh. viii. 17.), and the vast development 
of the Messianic idea conduct. 2 

On the other side, the following phenomena are unfavourable to 
the authenticity of the section. 

1. In the Gospel by St. Matthew, xxvii. 9., a passage is quoted 
from Zechariah xi. 12, 13., and attributed to Jeremiah. On this 
account Mede and other English writers attributed the 9th, 10th, and 
11th chapters to Jeremiah as the writer. 

2. The prophetic introductory formulas of the first part (i. 1. 7., 
iv. 8., vi. 9., vii. 1. 8., viii. 1. 18.) are wanting in the second ; others, 
in which Zechariah is not named, being found instead (ix. 1., xi. 4., 
xii. 1.). 

3. The historical stand-point in the second part is different from 
that of the first. Thus Damascus, Tyre, Philistia, Javan (ix. 1 — 6. 
13.), Assyria and Egypt (x. 10. &c), are enemies of Judah. The 
two kingdoms of Judah and Israel are still in existence (ix. 10. 13., 
x. 6. 7., xi. 14.); the royal house of David (xi. 6., xiii. 1., comp. xii. 
7. 12.) ; idolatry and false prophets (x. 2. &c, xiii. 2. &c). 

4. The two parts differ in style and language. In the first the 
language is flat, prosaic, without power, almost without rhythm; 
but in the second, the representation is lively, powerful, possessing 
poetic force and rhythm ; while the diction is antique and pure, not 
Chaldaising as in the first. 

5. Certain standing formulas distinguish both parts. Thus in 
the first we have the icord of the Lord came unto, &c. (i. 7., iv. 8., 
vi. 9. &c); thus saith the Lord of hosts (i. 4. 16. 17., ii. 12., viii. 2. 4. 
&c); while these are wanting in the second part, in which the 
phrase on that day frequently occurs. 

6. In the first part everything is shrouded in visions, and often 
difficult to be understood ; while the second part is not symbolic. 

It is difficult to decide between these opposite views, since some- 
thing depends on taste, and the peculiar exegesis of paragraphs and 

1 Haverrrick's Einleit, ii. 2. pp. 422, 423. 2 Havernick, ii. 2. p. 424. 

3 k 2 



980 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

passages. It must.be admitted that Hengstenberg 1 and Havernick 
have succeeded in answering various arguments adduced by such as 
deny the authenticity of the second part. The latter has specially 
weakened various statements made by Hitzig. We do not think that 
all the considerations just stated for and against the section are ca- 
pable of being sustained. Some are weak and inapposite. 

It is generally admitted that there is a palpable difference between the 
two parts in matter, form, and style. The question therefore is, how 
are the variations to be explained? Does diversity of subject, scope, and 
age account for the difference ? It may certainly explain some pecu- 
liarities of manner and style. But we greatly doubt whether it will 
account satisfactorily for every phenomenon. In our view the de- 
fenders of the authenticity, of whom the ablest are Hengstenberg and 
Keil, have not succeeded in overthrowing all the objections of the 
opponents ; though they have strained every nerve for that purpose. 
Between the two parts, even after every reasonable deduction has 
been made, a perceptible difference remains, which points to different 
writers. 

As to the real authorship of the chapters in question, critics have 
not agreed. Some think that parts of them were written at one 
time, and parts at another, by different persons ; relying in support 
of their views on various internal phenomena, which are in most cases 
of a precarious nature. Thus the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters 
are often separated from the remaining three, both in time and 
authorship. But it appears to us that the whole section (ix. — xiv.) 
proceeded from one and the same person, since the grounds alleged 
by Knobel, Sharpe, and others, for separating it into pieces are small 
and feeble. 2 Hitzig has adduced various points of contact between 
all the parts of it, both in ideas and usage of language. 3 "We should 
rely most on the following considerations against its authenticity. 

1. The difference of style and manner; ch. ix. — xiv. being so 
much more poetical and rhythmical than i. — viii. We do not 
believe that this is satisfactorily accounted for by Hengstenberg and 
Havernick, on the ground that the one part contains visions and 
admonitory discourses addressed to contemporaries, while the other 
exhibits prophetic pictures of the future ; along with the fact that 
the first was written in youth, the second at an advanced period of 
life. The second division must have been intended, in part at least, 
for the prophet's contemporaries as well as for future times. And 
it is a mere assumption that it was written considerably later than 
the first, when the prophet was not young. In youth we naturally 
look for greater poetic fire. The diction also is certainly purer and 
more archaic in the second part than the first. That there are 
resemblances between the two in point of language is allowed. The 
same words and phrases do sometimes occur in both. But this scarcely 
neutralises all the diversity. We should account for those analogies 

1 See his Beitriige, vol. ii. p. 361. et seqq. 

2 See KnobePs Prophetismus, ii. p. 283. et seqq ; and Sharpe's Historic Notes on the 
books of the Old and New Testaments, p. 156. et seqq. 

3 Die Zwolf Kleinen Propheten, u. s. w. p. 131. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Zechariah. 981 

by imitation ; the author of the first part having made some use of 
the second and earlier one. It is possible that the archaic diction of 
him who wrote chapters ix. — xiv. may have arisen, on the supposition 
of his identity with Zechariah, from a striving after the pure language 
of older writers by a process of laborious learning, as Havernick 
supposes ; but if this be so, why is it so much more perceptible in 
the one part than the other ? Is it because longer time in acquisition 
had elapsed ? That is very unlikely. 

2. Some historical references presuppose a pre-exile position. These 
are intractable in the hands of Hengstenberg and Havernick wishing 
to accommodate them to the time of Zechariah. Thus Assyria and 
Egypt are enemies of Judah. (x. 10. &c.) To regard these as types 
and representatives of the enemies of God's kingdom, is not tenable, 
as long as Damascus, Tyre, and Philistia are taken historically. Yet 
Havernick adopts this method. 

Again, the allusions to the teraphim, false prophets, and idols 
(x. 2. &c, xiii. 2. &c.) do not harmonise with the post-exile time. 
It is not sufficient to assert that the prominence of gross idolatry, as 
it existed before the exile, is not thereby presupposed, but only such 
forms as were not wanting even after the exile ; for vi. 10 — 14., Ezra 
ix. 2. &c, x. 3., Nehem. xiii. 23., do not justify the assertion, inas- 
much as they fail to show the activity of false prophetism or idolatry. 

The mention of a king or kingdom in xi. 6. does not suit the age 
of Zechariah. It is true, as Havernick says, that there is no mention 
here and in other places of like import of the Davidic family being 
still in actual possession of the throne. But to say that such a pro- 
phecy as this is Messianic, is irrelevant. The passage in xi. 6. 
occurs in a prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem, describing 
the wickedness of the inhabitants ; and the allegation of its being 
Messianic dissipates the propriety and meaning of the language. 
Even if it be secondarily Messianic, the primary sense must refer to 
historical events connected with a time when a king was upon the 
throne. The prophecy in xi. 1. &c. &c. is expounded by some, of 
the destruction by Titus ; but we quite agree with Mede in saying, 
" Methinks such a prophecy was nothing seasonable for Zachary's 
time (when the city yet for a great part lay in her ruins, and the 
temple had not yet recovered hers), nor agreeable to the scope of 
Zachary's commission, who, together with his colleague Haggai, was 
sent to encourage the people lately returned from captivity to build 
their temple and to instaurate their commonwealth. Was this a 
fit time to foretel the destruction of both, while they were yet but a 
building ? And by Zachary too, who was to encourage them ? 
Would this not better befit the desolation by Nebuchadnezzar ? " l 
Undoubtedly it would. The reply of Blayney 2 to this is nugatory, 
resting upon such arbitrary assumptions as, that Darius reigned 
thirty-six years ; that the three prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and 
Malachi, did not die before the last year of that king's reign ; that 

1 Works, p, 834., Epistle lxi. 

2 Zechariah, a New Translation, with Notes ; note on chap. ix. p. 36. ed. 1797. 



982 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Zechariah prophesied again toward the close of his life, publishing at 
this period what would not altogether have accorded with the period 
and purport of his first commission. 

In xi. 14. we read, " Then I cut asunder mine other staff, even 
Bands, that I might break the brotherhood between Judah and 
Israel." Surely this implies that the kingdom of Israel subsisted 
when the prophet wrote. It appears to refer to the captivity of 
the ten tribes, when the brotherly feeling between these kingdoms 
ceased. Passages are adduced by Havernick and others from Ezekiel, 
Malachi, and Zechariah himself, in which the two are still spoken of 
separately, as Judah and Ephraim ; and reference is made to their 
reunion in the Messianic time, when the Jews generally should be 
incorporated into the church of God. But none of those passages is 
analogous to the present, in which the separation between the two 
kingdoms, in respect to brotherly affection, is symbolised. They 
either speak of the two as separate, or of their reunion ; but not of 
their being sundered, as the present place. 

Though these are not the only considerations that weigh with us 
in thinking that Zechariah did not write ix. — xiv., they are the 
principal ones. The unknown writer lived before the exile. He 
prophesied before Ezekiel, who in xxxviii. 1 7. &c. seems to have had 
in his mind Zechariah xiv. 2. &c. This carries us up beyond the 
time of Jeremiah to whom Mede and others assign ix. x. xi. As 
the two kingdoms were standing, the writer may probably have been 
the Zechariah mentioned by Isaiah (viii. 2.), who was the son of 
Jeberechiah, and lived in the time of Ahaz, 741 B.C. The name 
Berechiah, whose son Zechariah, the writer of the first part, is said to 
have been (Zech. i. 1.), is the same as Jeberechiah. As, therefore, 
the names of both were alike, a later person uncritically put both 
prophecies together, and gave the whole one title made up of the 
two inscriptions, one purporting to be an oracle of Zechariah, son of 
Iddo (Ezra v. 1., vi. 14.) ; the other belonging to Zechariah, son of 
Berechiah. In this manner we remove the historical difficulty that 
in the book of Ezra Zechariah is called the son of Iddo; while in the 
book of Zechariah himself, he is mentioned as the son of Berechiah, 
the son of Iddo. There is no good reason for separating the time of 
writing chapters ix. x. and xi. — xiv. as Hitzig l , who ascribes them to 
the same writer, does ; for the considerations adduced are too pre- 
carious to be converted into marks of time. 

In concluding that these chapters did not proceed from the Ze- 
chariah of i. — viii., we can attach no importance to the quotation of 
Matt, xxvii. 9. from Zech. xi., purporting to be from Jeremiah. It 
is quite impossible to accede to Hengstenberg's opinion 2 that the 
words of Matthew are but a repetition of the oracle in Jer. xviii. and 
xix., which was to be fulfilled in the utter extinction and abandon- 
ment of the Jewish people. To say that these two chapters form 
the ground-passage of both Zechariah xi. and the quotation, is an 
ingenious subterfuge which no critic can allow. As little weight 

1 Die Zwcilf Kleinen Propheten, u. s. w. pp. 130, 131. 2 Cliristologie, ii. p. 257. 



On the Book of the Prophet Zechariah. 983 

can be attached to the mere assumption that Jeremiah in Matthew's 
text is an error which has crept into MSS. Textual criticism must 
abide by the name as the true reading, and explain it as best it may. 
Fritzsche has given the most probable origin of the name Jeremiah in 
Matthew's Gospel, " per memorize errorem ; " notwithstanding the 
" utter condemnation " dogmatically pronounced upon his explanation 
by a writer in Kitto's Cyclopaedia. 

The visions, symbols, and discourses of the first part are mostly in 
prose. A kind of foreign air and colouring belongs to them which 
may be explained by the effect of Babylonian cultivation and manners 
upon the body of the exiles. Not that the prophet himself received 
his education at Babylon ; but that he grew up amid the general 
influences which that land had upon his countrymen. 

It would appear that he made use of Ezekiel, whose visions 
have a strong foreign colouring. His prophecies have also many 
repetitions and standing formulas often recurring (i. 3, 4., i. 17. and 
ii. 13., ii. 13. and 15., iv. 9. and vi. 15., vii. 9. &c. and viii. 16. &c. 
The diction cannot be called pure or classical, for it undoubtedly 
Chaldaises. Nothing, therefore, can be farther from the truth than 
Blayney's assertion, " upon the whole we shall find the diction re- 
markably pure, the construction natural and perspicuous, and the 
style judiciously varied according to the nature of the subject." 1 In 
regard to the character and mode of representation by visions and 
symbols, there is room for diversity of opinion. The visions are 
artificially arranged and definite in their outlines ; yet there is an 
obscurity about them which need not have been, had the prophet 
possessed a higher and more original power of inspiration. The 
second part contains many elevated and original views of the future. 
It exhibits rare and powerful images, evincing a rich imagination 
imbued with youthful freshness and force. 

Great difficulty of understanding Zechariah's writings has been felt 
by most expositors, Jewish and Christian. Jerome says rightly, 
that he is the most obscure and largest among the twelve minor 
prophets ; and soon after, " We pass from the obscure to the more 
obscure, and enter with Moses into the cloud and darkness. Deep 
calls to deep in the voice of God's cataracts ; and the Spirit proceeds 
in wheels, returning to his circles," &c. &c. 2 Similar sentiments 
of Jewish Rabbis may be seen in Carpzov. 3 These complaints of 
interpreters about the darkness of the prophecies in Zechariah are 
well founded. The language is symbolic and highly figurative. Some 
of the views appear to be ideal, and lose themselves in a misty 
indistinctness corresponding to the idealistic images floating in the 
prophet's mind. This is particularly so in the second part, where 
the Messianic element prevails ; and in which it is very difficult to 
tell how far the writer's stand-point is in the historical present, and 
how far it is in the ideal future. Does he describe nothing else in 
some places than the Messianic age in theocratic images and diction ? 

1 Translation of Zechariah, prelim, discourse, p. xv. ed. 1797. 

2 Prolog, ad Commentar. lib. ii. 

3 Introductio ad Libros Propheticos, p. 433. 4th ed. 

3 R 4 



984 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

Or has his language an historical application in the Jewish dispensa- 
tion as well as a reference to the time of the gospel? Does he 
merely put Christian ideas, or ideas descriptive of Christian times, 
in a theocratic dress ; or does his representation take its rise and find 
its partial fulfilment in the dispensation to which he belonged, then 
soar away into the more distant scene of a higher economy, the 
colours of both blending so rapidly that it is impossible to separate 
them ? These are questions which will never be resolved in a satis- 
factory manner. He who wishes to test their nature may attempt 
an explanation of the last chapter. 

After what has been said, it is scarcely necessary to refute the 
affirmation of Blayney, " Nor in his language and composition do we 
find any particular bias to obscurity, except that the quickness and 
suddenness of the transitions is sometimes apt to confound the boun- 
daries of discourse." l 



CHAP. XXXIV. 

THE BOOK OF THE PROPHET MALACHI. 

Nothing is known of Malachi's person. It has even been doubted 
whether his name be a proper name, or only an appellative. The 
LXX. translate the inscription of his book " by the hand of his 
angel." (i. 1.) Origen thought that Malachi was an angel sent 
from God. Jonathan Ben Uzziel remarks (on i. 1.), " Malachi, 
whose name is called Ezra the scribe." Accordingly, Calmet 
and others have identified Malachi with Ezra the priest, an hy- 
pothesis which does not need refutation. That the two were 
distinct persons is unquestionable. Vitringa 2 and Hengstenberg s 
hold that the name is merely official. In favour of this the last 
critic quotes the LXX., the Chaldee, and Jerome; but relies 
especially on the name itself, which he considers equivalent to 
*pK?£, in iii. 1., i. e. my messenger. This derivation appears to us 
incorrect. Rather is the name 'PN?© a contraction of n*3X?£>, just as 
'38 (2 Kings xviii. 2.) is equivalent to rVjlfc? (2 Chron. xxix.), meaning 
angel or messenger of Jehovah. The name is significant, as the names 
of some other prophets are ; but that fact does not prove it to be a 
mere official title, or a symbolical word, rather than a proper name. 

That Malachi was contemporary with Nehemiah is evident from 
the contents of his book, which presents the same aspect of things as 
in the time of Nehemiah. Thus there is an almost verbal agreement 
between his description and that in the thirteenth chapter of Nehemiah. 
The persons and times appear to be identical. Marriages with hea- 
then wives are censured, the withholding of tithes is found fault with. 

1 Prelim. Discourse to Translation of Zechariah, p. xv. 

2 Observationes Sacra;, lib. vi. p. 367. 3 Christologie, vol. iii. 372. et seqq. 



On the Book of the Prophet Malachi. 985 

(Comp. ii. 10—16. with Neh. xiii. 23. &c. ; iii. 7—12. with Neh. xiii. 
10. &c. ; ii. 8. with Neh. xiii. 15. &c.) From these circumstances 
we infer that he prophesied during Nehemiah's second sojourn in 
Jerusalem, after the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes Longimanus, 
contributing the weight of his exhortations to the restoration of 
the Jewish polity, and the accompanying reforms set on foot by 
the governor of Judea. That he lived somewhat later than Haggai 
and Zechariah, is apparent both from the fact that he is not 
named along with them in the book of Ezra, and also that he 
presupposes the temple- worship again established, (i. 10., iii. 1.) 
He may be placed, therefore, about 420 B.C., which is the date 
adopted by Kennicott and Hales. 

The traditions respecting him are of a fabulous character, as that 
he belonged to the tribe of Zebulon, was born at Sopha in the 
territory of that tribe ; that he died young, having assisted as a 
member of the great synagogue in the re-establishment of order in 
his native country, &c. &C. 1 

The book consists of a connected prophetic discourse, respecting 
the relation of Jehovah to his people, which resolves itself into three 
sections, viz., I. i. 2— ii. 9.; II. ii. 10—16.; III. ii. 17— iii. 24. 
Speaking generally, the first sets forth the loving, fatherly, and mer- 
ciful disposition of God towards his covenant-people ; the second, 
Jehovah as the supreme God and father; the third, Jehovah as the 
righteous and final Judge of His people. 

I. The Jews having complained that God had showed them no 
special kindness, the prophet reminds them of the peculiar favour 
they had received, their country being a cultivated land, while that 
of the Edomites was laid waste and was to remain so as a perpetual 
monument of the Divine vengeance, (i. 1 — 5.) He reproves them 
for not duly honouring God as a father ; for which their rejection is 
threatened, and the calling of the Gentiles announced. The prophet 
denounces punishment against the priests for not teaching the people 
their duty. (i. 6— ii. 9.) 

II. He then censures intermarriages of Israelites with women of 
another country ; and also divorces, which had been multiplied 
for the purpose of contracting these prohibited marriages, (ii. 10 
-16.) 

III. Here the prophet foretels the coming of Messiah and his 
forerunner John the Baptist under the title of Elias, to purify the 
pi'iests and smite the land with a curse, unless there was repentance. 
It is true the hypocritical mass of the people despise a coming judg- 
ment, while they confound good and evil. But the day of judgment 
will come sooner than they expect, at the appearance of Messiah. 
The righteous and wicked will be separated, and rewarded according 
to their deeds. The prophecy terminates with enjoining the strict 
observance of the law, since the people need expect no prophet till 
the forerunner already promised should appear in the spirit and power 
of Elias, introducing a new dispensation, (ii. 17 — iii. 24.) 

1 See Knobel's Prophctismus, vcL ii. p. 385. 



986 Introduction to the Old Testament. 

What relation the prophecy in its present form bears to the oral 
teaching of Malachi cannot well be ascertained. Certainly the book 
does not contain distinct discourses delivered as they now appear. 
Nor does it contain the outlines of discourses addressed to the people, 
as Eichhorn supposes. 1 Ewald 2 has endeavoured to show that it 
presents far more of learned, artificial treatment of a subject, than 
of living discourse — that it has the character of a book rather than a 
popular address. But though true in part, this view is scarcely 
correct as a whole. It is more probable, as Havernick 3 believes, 
that the book presents the substance of oral discourses, whose original 
character does not wholly disappear even in the mould they have 
received. A general survey of the prophet's activity appears in the 
work. The most important particulars of Malachi's prophetic mi- 
nistry are concentrated in it. 

The form in which the prophecy is presented corresponds to the 
contents. There is an approach to the conversational or dialogue 
method, which is very different from the dramatic descriptions of the 
older prophets. But there is no lofty inspiration or fulness of thought. 
The language is prosaic. Everything manifests the decaying spirit 
of prophecy. It is said by some that the prophet consulted the 
practical wants of his time, which is correct ; but that does not 
account for the characteristics of manner and diction. The effort 
to instruct and improve the people is prominent in the somewhat 
artificial arrangement of sentences, evincing a deficiency of mastery 
over the materials. Besides, traces of careful study of the ancient 
prophets appear. The two different forms of prophecy are visible in 
their united character ; viz., the old prophetic and the new dialogistic, 
the spoken and the written, the free outbursting of a full heart, and 
the colder method of learned life. Ewald has remarked very cor- 
rectly 4 , that there is a uniformity in the dialogistic manner, which 
presents a short sentence, and then the sceptical questions of the 
people, which are copiously refuted ; in which characteristic we may 
perceive the encroaching influence of an incipient scholastic repre- 
sentation upon prophetic discourse. Here it is a mark of the de- 
parting prophetic spirit. Considering the late period of the book, 
the diction is beautiful and smooth. It wants fire and force. A 
writer in Kitto's Cyclopaedia says, with strange incorrectness, that 
* the style, rhythm, and imagery of his writings are substantially those 
of the old prophets." 

Malachi is the last of the minor prophets, and consequently the 
latest writer in the Old Testament canon. It has been asserted that 
ch. iv. 4, 5, 6. (Heb. iii. 22 — 24.) might alone suggest that he was 
the last of the Hebrew prophets till John the Baptist appeared ; but 
we are unable to perceive the correctness of the allegation. 

The canonical authority of hisbook is established by various allu- 
sions to it in the New Testament, as Matt. xi. 10., xvii. 12.; Mark 
i. 2., ix. 11, 12. ; Luke i. 17. ; Rom. ix. 13. 

1 Einleit. vol. iv. p. 464. 2 Die Propheten, u. s. w. vol. ii. p. 541. et seqq. 

3 Einleit. ii. 2. p. 430. 4 Die Propheten, u. s. w. p. 542. 



A BRIEF INTRODUCTION 

TO 

THE APOCRYPHA. 



CHAPTER I. 1 

THE THIRD BOOK OF ESDRAS (FIRST ESDRAS, ENGLISH VERSION). 

This book is called the third book of Esdras In the Vulgate version, 
where Ezra and Nehemiah are counted the first and second. It 
was termed by some the second book of Esdras, Ezra and Nehemiah 
being reckoned together as one work. But in the old Latin, Syriac, 
and LXX., it is called the first book of Esdras, and is placed 
accordingly before the canonical Ezra. As the contents belong in 
part to a prior time to that of the canonical Ezra, the position is appro- 
priate. In the editions of the Vulgate which preceded that of Sixtus 
the Fifth, the Latin translation of the present work stood before 
the canonical Ezra and Nehemiah ; but since that, it has been en- 
tirely separated from the canonical books, and has occupied different 
positions among the Apocryphal ones. The Complutensian Polyglott 
is without it ; and Luther did not translate it because it added 
nothing of importance to the contents of the canonical Scriptures. 

In some editions of the LXX. it is styled 6 ispsvs, the priest, which 
is equivalent to Ezra, so called by way of eminence. Thus it is 
entitled in the Codex Alexandrinus. But the usual title is "EaBpas, 
or Ezra. 

The Greek and Latin fathers often mention the book, and some of 
them use it against heretics. So Athanasius employs it against the 
Arians ; Justin Martyr, in the dialogue with Trypho ; Augustine, 
and Cyprian. But it never obtained canonical authority. Jerome 
speaks unfavourably of it. The councils of Florence and Trent 
decided against its canonical credit ; and Protestants have uniformly 
rejected it. In recent times, it seems to have acquired a just place 
in Jewish literature ; and is now recognised as a document of some 
value in historical criticism. 

The greater part of the work is a translation made in Greek from 
the Old Testament. On comparing it with the original Hebrew, we 
see that it is very free in character. The differences are such as can 

1 For an account of the reasons why the Apocryphal books, which are usually printed 
between the Old and New Testaments, are excluded from the canonical list, the reader is 
referred to the Appendix to Vol. I. 



988 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

be accounted for partly by the liberties the translator took with the 
Old Testament text ; partly by the fact that the text was sometimes 
different from what it now is. Sometimes the Hebrew is abbreviated ; 
sometimes it is made more conformable to the Greek idiom by small 
additions or omissions. The language on the whole is good Hel- 
lenistic Greek, possessing considerable purity and taste. Hence it 
contrasts very favourably with that of the LXX., and approaches 
nearer to Theodotion. 

The contents are the following : — 

I. Chap. i. equivalent to 2 Chron. xxxv. xxxvi., giving an account 
of the magnificent passover-feast in the eighteenth year of Josiah's 
reign, and continuing the history till the Babylonish captivity. 

II. Chap. ii. 1 — 15. equivalent to the first chapter of Ezra, re- 
lating the return of the people by Cyrus's permission, under the 
guidance of Sanabassar. 

III. Chap. ii. 16 — 30. equivalent to Ezra iv. 7 — 24., describing 
Artaxerxes's prohibition of the building of the temple, till the second 
year of Darius. 

IV. Chap. iii. — v. 6. contains a peculiar narrative respecting three 
young men who kept watch over the king, striving to excel one 
another in uttering the wisest sentence. The contest is conducted 
before Darius, with all his nobles and princes ; and the victor Zoro- 
babel gets permission from the king for the Jews to return to their 
own country and rebuild their city and temple. 

V. Chapters v. 7 — 73. This portion is substantially the same as 
Ezra ii. 1 — iv. 6., giving a list of the persons who returned with 
Zorobabel and others ; the commencement of the rebuilding of the 
temple ; and the obstacles by which it was interrupted s ' for the space 
of two years, until the reign of Darius." 

VI. Chapters vi. vii. equivalent to Ezra v. vi. Here it is related 
how the temple is built under Darius by Zorobabel ; is completed in 
the sixth year of Darius ; and the passover kept. 

VII. Chapters viii. — ix. 36. This portion is equivalent to Ezra 
vii. — x., giving an account of Ezra's return with that of his colony in 
the seventh year of Artaxerxes, and the putting away of strange 
wives. 

VIII. Chap. ix. 37 — 55. equivalent to Neh. vii. 73 — viii. 13., 
describing the public reading of the law by Ezra. 

On comparing the work before us with the canonical writings 
belonging to the same times, persons, and transactions, various phe- 
nomena immediately present themselves as peculiar. 

1. The letters contained in Ezra iv. 7 — 24. are here placed after 
the first chapter. Which position is the right one ? Every thing 
is suitable and connected in the history as it is given in Ezra iv. 7 
— 24. compared with what precedes and follows ; but the order in 
the Apocryphal work is disturbing. 1 Thus, in 3 Esdras v. 68—71. 
Zorobabel and his companions refused the proffered assistance of the 
Samaritans in building the temple on the ground that Cyrus had 

1 Comp. Exeget. Handbucli in die Apokiyphen, i. p. 5. 



On the Third Booh of Esdras. 989 

commanded them to rebuild it. Why appeal to an old command of 
Cyrus, when the writer had before related that Darius had given 
permission anew ? In like manner the 70th verse of the same 
chapter is inapposite, where Cyrus is again mentioned in such a 
manner as would lead us to suppose that all which had occurred 
already had happened under his reign; whereas, according to the 
Apocryphal book, it took place under Darius. Josephus, who saw 
the difficulty arising out of the Apocryphal work, endeavoured to 
remove it in a singular way. He represents Zerubbabel as coming 
back again from Jerusalem to Darius, who makes him his body- 
guard. The Jews said to the Samaritans, according to the historian, 
that " it was impossible to permit them to be their partners, whilst 
they only had been appointed to build that temple, at first by Cyrus, 
and now by Darius, fyc. Immediately after, the complaint to Darius 
is, not that the building was begun again, but that it was too strong, 
looking more like a citadel than a temple. What surprises one is, 
that Josephus did not compare the Hebrew, which would have re- 
solved the difficulty at once. But he followed the Apocryphal Esdras 
without hesitation. 1 

2. The peculiar section in iii. — v. 6. was probably drawn from 
tradition, and received both its form and shape from the writer. ' It 
had no Hebrew or written basis ; for the language is original Hel- 
lenistic, with the exception of v. 1 — 6., whose original is lost. The 
object of the whole is evidently to give the reason why Darius 
favoured the Jews so remarkably. There is a difficulty about 
Zorobabel in iv. 13. connected with v. 5. &c. Joacim, the son of 
Zorobabel, is represented as speaking wise sentences before Darius 
the king, in the second year of his reign. This has sometimes been 
removed by emendation. 

3. According to ix. 37. &c, the public reading of the law took 
place under Ezra ; whereas, the original text makes it to be much 
later, under Nekemiah. (Neh. vii. 73. &c.) It is now usually 
admitted that the account in 3 Esdras is the more correct one. 
Accordingly the words S-l rppcP : , in Neh. viii. 9. are regarded as 
spurious. It is against this, however, that we find the words Nss/j,tas 
fcal 'Ardaplas, Nehemias and Atharias (v. 40.), which may be com- 
pared with Ezra ii. 63., Neh. vii. 65. The text seems to be corrupt. 
Whether the two names be identical, signifying the same person, or 
the latter be the title of the former, the Hebrew text should be 
emended. 2 

As to the integrity of the work, it is apparent that we do not 
possess it in a complete state. The close is abrupt, showing that 
something is wanting. Hence it may be fairly concluded that, as the 
last eighteen verses are taken from Neh. vii. 73 — viii. 12., the Greek 
writer added matter equivalent to Neh. viii. 13 — 18. Zunz thinks 
that the seven missing chapters (Neh. i. — vii.) stood at first in the 
present book. 3 

1 See Josephns's Antiqq. si. 4. 

2 Compare Fritzsche in the Exeget. Handbuch, i. pp. 7, 8. 

3 Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden, p. 29. 



990 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

It is difficult to ascertain anything definite about the translator 
and his time. He was a Hellenist, or Greek-speaking Jew, who 
lived in Palestine ; as v. 47. leads us to suppose. Accordingly 
Zunz l pronounces the new piece iii. 1 — v. 6. Palestinian in its 
origin. No trace of the time when the writer lived can be detected 
in the work. Josephus was acquainted with it, and followed it in 
place of the canonical text; so that he must have attached a high 
value to the contents. (Comp. Antiqq. xi. 1. 1 — 5., x. 4, 5.) 2 
Hence its composition may be placed in the first century before 
Christ. 

There are various versions of the book. The old Latin, which is 
in Sabatier's work, is not in a very pure state. The Syriac, too, in 
Walton has suffered in its text. The version belonging to the 
Vulgate is the old Latin one improved. The Armenian version is 
useless in a critical respect, if we may judge from the readings of 
Holmes and Parsons. 

It is difficult to discover the object for which this compilation was 
made. It may perhaps have been intended to present a continuous 
history of greater extent than that included in the canonical Ezra 
and Nehemiah; but this is frustrated by its present fragmentary 
character. De Wette says truly, that it has no historical, but 
merely a philological and critical value. 3 In applying it, however, 
to the criticism of the Hebrew text, great caution and care should 
be used ; for the translator not only took many liberties with the 
original, but fell into numerous mistakes. Hence it becomes a 
difficult matter, in many cases, to distinguish the authentic readings 
of the Hebrew recension he followed from his own diversified matter 
and language. Eichhorn has collated many words, which will serve 
as specimens to the critic who wishes to pursue the inquiry. 4 



CHAP. II. 

THE FOURTH BOOK OF ESDRAS (SECOND ESDRAS, ENGLISH VERSION). 

In the Latin text this production is called the fourth book of Esdras, 
as it is by Jerome. But in the Greek church it was denominated 
^AiroKaXir^-ts or irpo^rjrsia "E^aSpa, the Apocalypse or prophecy of 
Esdras. In the Arabic and Ethiopic it is called the first book of 
Esclras, because in them the last two chapters (xv. xvi.) of the Latin 
text are reckoned an independent production, to which was given the 
name of the second Esdras. 

There are three texts of this book, viz. the Latin, which is the 
oldest, printed in the fourth volume of the London Polyglotr, and in 
the third volume of Sabatier, as well as elsewhere ; the Arabic, found 

1 Die gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der Juden, pp. 105, 106. 

2 See Eichhorn's Einleitung in die Apokryphischen Schriften, u. s. w. p. 347. etseqq. 

3 Einleitung, p. 441. 4 Einleitung in die Apokryphischen, u. s. w. p. 354. et segq. 



On the Fourth Book of Esdras. 991 

in two MSS. in the Bodleian library, not yet printed; the Ethiopic, 
published by Laurence from a MS. in the Bodleian, with a Latin 
and English translation. 

There can be no doubt that the Latin is a translation from the 
Greek. This is apparent from Latin words in it which have been 
formed from Greek ones; from Grsecisms in construction, such as 
the genitive absolute ; and from mistakes in translation resolvable 
only by means of a Greek original. It is of the same character as 
the Versio Vetus, or old ante-Hieronymian version. All that can be 
certainly known respecting its age is, that it is older than Ambrose, 
since his citations from the work agree with the present Latin text. 
And it is considerably older than Ambrose, if two quotations in 
Tertullian be really taken from it 1 , as some have supposed, including 
Oehler, the latest editor of Tertullian. 

The Arabic version was translated by Simon Ockley and pub- 
lished by Whiston in his " Primitive Christianity Revived." (vol. 
iv.) It wants the first two and last two chapters of the Latin, 
which are in neither of the Arabic MSS. The text is more 
paraphrastic than the Latin, and appears to have been made inde- 
pendently from the Greek. Besides, the Greek text was different 
from the one the Latin translator used ; as we infer, not merely 
because four chapters are wanting, but also because a section is 
inserted in the seventh chapter between the thirty-fifth and thirty- 
sixth verses, which is not in the Latin. Lucke 2 thinks that it was 
not made before the seventh century. 

It is to be regretted that the Ethiopic MS. used by Laurence has 
many mistakes ; and that his version requires correction by means 
of a better knowledge of the language. Van der Vlis 3 has shown 
that it was made directly from a Greek text. It is not so literal 
as the Latin ; and not so paraphrastic as the Arabic. The contents 
agree with those in the Arabic version. All that can be determined 
respecting its age is, that it was later than the fourth century. 

The contents of the book are in brief the following : — 

Ezra, a captive in the land of the Medes, receives a command from 
God to announce to the people that God would cast them off for 
their disobedience, and turn his grace towards a nation from the East. 
The mother of the people, i. e. Zion, calls upon her children to ask 
God for mercy. But the prophet calls for righteous judgment upon 
them. God says to Ezra, that he would give his covenant-people 
the kingdom of Jerusalem. Ezra received this charge upon Mount 
Horeb ; he delivers it, but is despised. He turns accordingly to the 
people who were ready for the kingdom of God, and addresses them. 
After this he sees on Mount Zion a great multitude praising God ; 
and, in the midst of them, the Son of God putting a crown on them. 

From the third to the fourteenth chapter inclusive forms a con- 
nected whole, having no relation to the first two chapters. 

In the thirteenth year after the destruction of Jerusalem, Ezra 

1 Adversus Marc. iv. 16., and De prescript, haeret. 3., from xv. 1. and Yiii. 20. 
respectively. 

- Versuch einer vollstandigen Einleit. in die Offenbarung des Johannes, p. 149. 
3 Disputatio critica de Ezrac libro apocrypho vulgo quarto dicto, p. 77. et seqq. 



992 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

was in Babylon and troubled in mind. He began, therefore, to pray- 
to God, and acknowledge the sins of the people ; but complained that 
the heathen ruled over them, though they were still more wicked. 
The angel Uriel being sent to him declares the ignorance of Ezra 
respecting the divine judgments, and advises him not to meddle with 
things above his understanding. Ezra states that he is content to 
know only worldly things ; yet he asks various questions and receives 
replies. In consequence of a question put to the angel, the signs of 
the time to come are declared. The first vision which he sees in his 
dream terminates with v. 14. ; on which, he awakes exhausted. But 
the angel strengthens him. 

On the second night, Salathiel the captain of the people comes to 
him, complaining of his absence, and requesting him not to forsake 
the people committed to him in the land of captivity. But Ezra 
sends him away, and, having fasted seven days, he receives the second 
vision. Here he asks, why God choosing but one people cast them 
off; in answer to which he is taught that God's judgments are 
unsearchable ; and that the Divine Being does not perform all at 
once. God's purpose is eternal. The next world shall follow this 
immediately. The end of the present world will be attended with 
great and terrifying natural phenomena, as well as by war among 
men. He is promised a new vision. 

The third vision begins with vi. 35. and reaches to ix. 25. 

In ix. 26. it is related that he goes into the field Ardath and does 
as he was commanded ; after which begins the fourth vision, ix. 27 
—x. 60. 

Chapters xi. and xii. contain the fifth dream-vision. 

The sixth vision is in the thirteenth chapter. 

In the fourteenth chapter, a voice out of a bush calls him, and 
tells him that the world is growing old. On his complaining of the 
law having been burnt, he is commanded to take with him five ready 
writers, and write all that should be revealed. Having drunk a cup 
of inspiration, he dictated to the five, for the space of forty days, and 
they wrote 204 books. The first 134 he was commanded to publish; 
the last 70 were to be delivered to the wise only. 

As the Arabic and Ethiopic terminate here with the fourteenth 
chapter, they add a few words respecting Ezra's translation to heaven, 
and give the year of his death very differently. But in the Latin, 
the voice of God, which had begun to speak to Ezra at the forty-fifth 
verse of the fourteenth chapter, is continued. A new prophecy is 
delivered to him respecting the destruction of the nations, especially 
Egypt. Other places are threatened. The people of God are ex- 
horted to repentance in the mean time. 

Before speaking of the age of this production, we must first refer 
to the Greek text whence the Latin was made. Clement of Alex- 
andria expressly quotes a passage from v. 35. with the introductory 
formula, " Esdras the prophet says." l Some have also thought it is 
cited in the Epistle of Barnabas (chap, xii.), where, in like manner, 
Ezra would be termed a prophet. But it is more probable, as Liicke 
1 Stromata, iii. 16. 



On the Fourth Book of Esdras. 993 

supposes, that the writer of the so-called Barnabas Epistle cited from 
another apocryphal book. Colemesius, Jacobson, and Hefele also 
believe that in the first Epistle of Clement (chap. 1.), there is an 
allusion to 4 Esdras ii. 16. ; while Jachmann finds traces of its use 
in the "Pastor of Hei-mas." But these references cannot be allowed. 
The only sure testimony to the existence of the book in the second 
century is Clement's. It is quite a mistake to say, as a writer in 
Kitto's Cyclopaedia does, that Irenams looked upon the book as 
canonical and divine ; for there is no evidence that he was even 
aware of its existence. 1 

Was the Greek translated from a Hebrew original ? John Morin 
supposed that the book could not have been written in Greek at first, 
because it is so thoroughly Jewish in every respect. Bretschneider 
also endeavoured to show from the Latin, that mistakes made by the 
Greek translator betrayed a Hebrew original. 2 But these are all 
conjectural. There can be no doubt that it was written at first 
in Greek ; for it is pervaded by Grnecisms inconsistent with a version. 
This has been proved by Van der Vlis. 3 

When was the book written? Here we must regard only the 
proper contents, viz. chapters iii. — xiv.; for the remaining chapters did 
not originally belong to these. The author was a Jew, as appears 
from the whole matter and manner. He personates Ezra and his 
situation, attributing to him wonderful wisdom and inspiration. The 
name of God is nowhere found but in Israel (iii. 30.); Israel keep the 
divine precepts, but not the heathen, (iii. 36.). The Messiah is 
spoken of as future. Even his death is spoken of in a Jewish, not a 
Christian way. There are also Jewish mythical ideas interwoven 
with the author's descriptions of land and water, behemoth, and 
leviathan. 4 

It is possible that the Jewish author may have lived after Christ, as 
some have supposed. Yet it is very improbable. From the quotation 
made by Clement of Alexandria, it must, if post-christian, have been 
written in the first century or beginning of the second after Christ ; 
since it must have been known in the church a considerable time 
previously to the citation. But such a production as this would 
hardly have obtained general currency or acceptance among Chris- 
tians at a time when Judaism and Christianity were in sharp conflict, 
had it first appeared after the Pauline epoch. Besides, the apoca- 
lyptic situation and chronology of it are adverse to its composition 
after the advent of Christ. 

In the eleventh chapter is described an eagle, rising from the sea, 
which had twelve feathered wings and three heads, denoting the 
Roman empire. This is taken from the fourth empire of Daniel, 
which was interpreted to mean the Roman, in the Roman period of 
Jewish history, but not before. This, the current opinion, is followed 
by the writer of the present book. Hence we are led to see, that 

1 See Liicke's "Versuch einer vollst. Einleit. pp. 151, 152. 

2 In Henke's Museum, vol. iii. p. 478. etseqq. 

3 Disputatio Critica, &c., chapters i. and ii. 

4 See Liicke's Versuch, u. s. w. p. 189. et seqq. 
VOL. II. 3 S 



994 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

he could not have written before the middle of the first century 
before Christ, when that view of Daniel's fourth empire began to be 
entertained. 

A good deal of ingenious speculation has been indulged in re- 
specting the precise meaning of the twelve wings, three heads, and 
small feathers growing out of other feathers belonging to the eagle ; 
for the purpose of ascertaining the precise point of Roman history 
indicated. Laurence 1 , Gfrorer 2 , Yan der Vlis 3 , B. Bauer, 4 Wieseler 5 , 
and Llicke, have tried to eliminate the time by this means ; though 
with little effect. All that can be probably inferred is, that the 
writer lived in the time of the three heads ; and after the middle, 
which was the larger head, had disappeared. These were Sylla, 
Pompey, and Caesar. In xi. 35. it is said that the right head 
devoured the left, /. e. Caesar conquered Pompey. Hence the au- 
thor wrote after Pompey's death. But he could not have written 
after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans ; for this is not 
mentioned or implied; since such passages as i. 1 — 29., x. 28 — 36., 
xii. 44. &c, relate to the assumed stand-point of Ezra himself, after 
the destruction of the city by the Babylonians. The last conflict of 
the Roman empire with the theocracy had not happened, but was 
impending. Thus the book was composed shortly before the advent 
of Christ, somewhere about 40 B.C. This is not very different from 
the date assigned by Laurence, viz. between 28 and 25 B.C. ; or 
that of Van Vlis, soon after the death of Julius Cassar. But Gfrorer, 
Wieseler, and Bauer assign the date 94 or 95 a.c. 6 Everything 
conspires to show that its birth-place was Egypt, not Palestine. 
This is confirmed by the fact that the Jewish Sibyllines allude to 
Roman history in the same manner; whereas, such references as 
characterise the Palestinian book of Enoch, are absent. 

Laurence rightly perceived that the work must have been early 
interpolated by the Christians. 7 Things too Jewish were omitted ; 
and glosses were inserted, or additions made, which served to adapt it 
more nearly to Christian ideas. As an example, we refer to vii. 28., 
films mens Jesus, my son Jesus, instead of which the Ethiopic has, 
my Messiah; and the Arabic, my son Messiah. The Arabic omits 
et morietur filius meus Christus, in vii. 29. ; and the Ethiopic, 400 
years, in vii. 28. 

The later appendix, consisting of chapters xv. and xvi., was written 
in Egypt, as internal evidence proves. So also the first two chapters. 
Both betray a Christian origin ; for in the first two chapters, the 
Old Testament people are described as already rejected, and the New 
Testament people received into their place, while some places appear 
to be reminiscences of John's Apocalypse (ii. 36. 43 — 45.); and in the 

1 Primi Ezrae libri Versio iEthiopica, General Eemarks, p. 317. et seqq. 

2 Jahrhundert des Heils, i. p. 70 et seqq. 

3 Disputatio Critica, &c, p. 177. et seqq. 

4 In the Berliner Jahrbiich, fur wissent. Kritik, 1841, p. 837. et seqq. 
6 Die Jahrwochen Daniels, p. 206. et seqq. 

6 See Lticke, p. 196. et seqq. 

7 Primi Ezrae libri Versio iEthiopica, General Remarks, p. 317. &c. 



On the Fourth Book of Esdras. 995 

last two chapters, an acquaintance with the Apocalypse of John may 
also be detected (xv. 8. 13. 40.). Neither piece has any connection 
with the work itself, which consists of chapters iii. — xiv. 

It has been found that the Ethiopic and Arabic versions are 
older and better representatives of the original Greek text than the 
Latin. This has been inferred, not only from their wanting the 
four chapters, which were of later origin ; but also from the addition 
in vii. 35, 36., a considerable part of which Ambrose quotes, though 
it is not in the Latin text. 

It has been observed by Van der Vlis, that the Latin translation 
of chapters i. ii. and xv. xvi. differs from that of the remainder in 
having fewer mistakes and corruptions, as well as in being derived 
from Greek written in a better style. Probably the Latin had not 
at first those chapters. In most Latin MSS. of the book they are 
wanting. 

Various Latin MSS. of the Bible have the last two chapters as 
the fifth book of Esdras. Laurence mentions one codex in the 
British Museum which speaks of the six books of Esdras or Ezra, i. e. 
Ezra (1.), Nehemiah (2.), Ezra (3.), i. e. the first two chapters of 
the present work, Ezra (4.), i. e. the third Esdras in the LXX., 
Ezra (5.), i. e. the fourth book of Esdras (ch. iii. — xiv.), Ezra (6.), 
containing the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters. 

The fourth book of Esdras is a very interesting specimen of the 
later Jewish apocalyptic literature. As a record of Jewish senti- 
ments on several important points shortly before the rise of Christi- 
anity, it deserves no inconsiderable attention. The descriptions are 
spirited and striking. The original language must have been ex- 
cellent Hellenistic Greek, corresponding in elegance and manner to 
the bold, original ideas which it bodies forth. The writer was by no 
means deficient in invention, mental energy, and artistic skill. It is 
apparent that Daniel is the type ; especially in some visions. To 
that work and the book of Enoch it has most resemblance. But as 
Enoch is of Palestinian, and fourth Esdras of Alexandrian origin, 
there are diversities between them. 

Very few have regarded the book as the authentic production of 
Ezra, except some fanatics and mystics. A writer in Kitto's Cy- 
clopaedia incorrectly asserts that Whiston considered it in this light ; 
whereas that eccentric scholar thought it to be the production of a 
Jewish Christian about 99 or 100 years after Christ. 1 

The Roman Catholic church always rejected the fourth book of 
Esdras, not esteeming it canonical ; and Luther did not trans- 
late it. 

1 See Essay on the Apostolic Constitutions, pp. 38, 39., in his Primitive Christianity 
revived. 



3 S 2 



996 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 



CHAP. III. 

THE BOOK OF TOBIT. 

The book of Tobit is entitled /3l/3\os Xoycov Tg>/3/t, a phrase taken 
from the commencement; or simply Tco/3lt, in Latin Tobias, liber 
Tobia>, Tobit et Tobias, liber utriusque Tobice. 
The history contained in the book runs as follows : 
Tobit, of the tribe of Naphtali, was carried away captive to 
Nineveh in the time of Shalmaneser king of Assyria. He was a 
pious and upright man, punctilious in the observance of the law, and 
free from idolatry. He married Hannah, of his own kindred, and 
had by her a son, Tobias. Under Shalmaneser his condition was 
prosperous ; for he became his purveyor, and deposited with Gabael 
at Rages, in Media, ten talents of silver. But under Sennacherib, 
who killed many of the Jews, he was obliged to flee because of his 
alms and charity in burying the dead bodies of his countrymen ; so 
that he lost all he had. After Sennacherib's murder, he was per- 
mitted to return to Nineveh under Esarhaddon, at the intercession 
of Achiacharus, his brother's son. Soon after he lost his eyesight 
through birds, in consequence of his sleeping outside by the wall of 
his courtyard with his face uncovered, after burying a poor Israelite 
who had been strangled and thrown into the market-place. But 
though now blind and poor, he was conscientiously upright. When 
his wife received the present of a kid, Tobit thought it had been 
stolen, and got into an altercation with his wife about it, who taunted 
him with his alms and righteous deeds. Being grieved, he prayed 
to God that he might die. On the same day, Sara, being reproached 
by her father's maids, betook herself to God in prayer. She was the 
daughter of Raguel in Ecbatana, and had lost seven husbands on the 
bridal night, by the instrumentality of Asmocleus the evil spirit. 
Raphael accordingly was sent to both. 

Expecting death, as he wished, Tobit gave instructions to his son 
Tobias, telling him of the money left with Gabael in Media. Ac- 
cordingly young Tobias went to Media to fetch the money, accom- 
panied by an angel, who oifered to be his guide, and w T ho called 
himself Azarias, son of Ananias. On their journey to Ecbatana they 
came to the Tigris, where Tobias took a fish which leaped out of the 
river and would have devoured him, drew it to land, and took out of 
it the heart, liver, and gall, at the command of the angel. He was 
also advised by the angel to marry Sara, the daughter of Raguel, 
being the only man of her kindred. When he hesitated on account 
of what had befallen the maid, the angel taught him how to drive 
away the wicked spirit. Raguel gave his daughter in marriage to the 
young man who drove away the wicked spirit, as he had been taught. 
Asmodeus fled accordingly into the utmost parts of Egypt, where the 
angel bound him. As Tobias was obliged to stay fourteen days for the 
wedding feast, he sent the angel to Gabael for the money. The latter 
brought Gabael himself to the wedding. On the expiration of the 



On the Book of Tobit. 997 

wedding feast, Raguel sent away Tobias and his wife with half their 
goods, blessing them at their departure. As the travellers approached 
Nineveh, Raphael advised Tobias to hasten forward before his wife, 
and apply the gall of the fish to the father's eyes at their first meeting. 
Tobit recovered his sight by this means. The daughter-in-law was 
joyfully welcomed, and Tobit's Avedding was celebrated seven days. 
On Tobit's offering the angel half of what he had, the latter immedi- 
ately took father and son aside, blessed them, and exhorted them to 
be faithful to their God ; telling them that he was Raphael, one 
of the seven holy angels, and was now returning to heaven. Ac- 
cordingly he disappeared. We have then a song of praise to God, 
Avritten down by Tobit, containing prophetic glances into the future. 
The book closes with various particulars of the family. Tobit 
attains to an unusual age, and advises his son to leave Nineveh, 
because it was to be destroyed according to the predictions of Jonah. 
After the death of father and mother, Tobias removed to Ecbatana, 
and there died, having first heard of Nineveh's destruction. 

There are different texts of this narrative. The Greek text in the 
Septuagint is the one usually followed, because it was that of the 
Greek chnrch. There is another revised Greek text, which has been 
preserved only in part. Closely related to this latter was a Syriac 
version, which, however, is extant only from vii. 10. There are 
three Latin versions, varying considerably, — the old Latin, the Vul- 
gate, and one printed by Sabatier among the various readings of the 
Versio Vetus. There are also two different Hebrew texts, one printed 
at Constantinople, 1517, 4 to., for which Fagius afterwards made a 
Latin translation. The other was first printed by Sebastian Minister, 
at Basil, 1542, 8vo., and often afterwards. Both are in Walton's 
Polyglot t. 

The relation of these texts to one another is of a kind which 
gives rise to many conjectures. They differ in names, numbers, 
secondary circumstances, forms and turns of speech ; being some- 
times shorter, at others longer. But the general basis and form 
of the narrative is the same in all. Two hypotheses are therefore 
possible ; viz., the various writers elaborated the same materials 
independently of one another; or there was a written document on 
the basis of which the present works were made with some degree of 
independence in the treatment of the materials. The latter hypo- 
thesis seems to be the true one ; and then the problem presented for 
discussion is an investigation of the common basis. 

Those interested in minute discussions of this nature must have 
recourse to Ilgen's work, in which the first scientific attempt was 
made to solve the problem in question. 1 Here great critical sagacity 
and tact are displayed. The result arrived at was adopted by 
Bertholdt ; and, with some exceptions, by De Wette. We believe, 
however, that the critic's ingenuity constructed a complicated fabric 
of very frail materials. More successful than Ilgen has been the 

1 Die Geschichte Tobi's nach drey verschiedenen Originalen, dem Griechischen, dem 
Lateinischen des Hieronymus und einem Syrischen, uebersetzt und mit AnmerkuDgen 
exegetischen und kritischea Inhalts, auch einer Einleitung versehen, Jena, 1800. 

3 s 3 



998 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

most recent writer on the subject, Fritzsche l , which has arisen from 
his being of a less constructive propensity. 

The Greek text in the LXX., though not the first, is that which 
approaches nearest of all to the original one. This fact is admitted 
even by Huet and Houbigant; though Catholics generally prefer 
the Vulgate. Here the narrative is simplest : by it we can explain 
why alterations were adopted in the other texts : and it may even be 
corrected in some places not yet corrupted by means of them; whereas 
the later texts give no such assistance in passages where it had been 
corrupted before them. 2 

It is difficult to decide whether the Greek be an original or a 
version. Ilgen has pointed out many mistakes of the translator, as 
he conceives ; but although it is not clear that they all bear the 
character he assigns to them, some are unquestionably such, as hi. 6., 
iv. 19., notwithstanding Fritzsche's assertion of the contrary. 3 The 
Hebraising tone also shows that the original was in Hebrew. The 
strong barbarisms of diction favour the same view. Hence it was 
probably written in Hebrew. Fritzsche thinks that a Jew was 
capable of writing it in Greek as it stands ; but it is most unlikely 
that a Palestinian Jew (and from such it must have proceeded) could 
or would have so composed it. It is true that Origen evinced no 
knowledge of a Hebrew text, and that the Chaldee from which 
Jerome translated was a later production ; but this is insufficient to 
shake the Hebrew originality. 

The Greek text, of which we are speaking, has been preserved in 
a tolerably pure state. Holmes and Parsons collated eighteen MSS. 
of it. The Syriac version printed in the London Polyglott was 
made from it as far as vii. 9., according to the marginal annotation 
in Ussher's MS. The remaining part must therefore have been 
taken from another edition. 

Besides this, there is another Greek text in the Codex Friderico- 
Augustanus, printed by Tischendorf, in 1846 ; and in 44. 106. 107. 
of Holmes and Parsons. The first codex contains it from i. 1. to 
ii. 2., the remainder being lost. The last three MSS. give it from 
vi. 9 — xiii. ; the remaining chapters in them being the earlier text. 
On comparing this text with the preceding one, it appears to be 
nothing more than a revision. Abbreviations and enlargements are 
made. Names, numbers, words, are altered. These are usually for 
the better ; at least they are such as make the Greek rounder, fuller, 
and more perspicuous ; for the turns and constructions are improved. 
Fritzsche has endeavoured to restore the text in question as far as 
possible ; and to exhibit it with the necessary critical apparatus. 

The Hebrew text printed at Constantinople and Latinised by 
Fagius (H. F. in Fritzsche) is nothing more than a paraphrase of 
the Greek. It does not differ much from the source whence it was 
taken. There are, indeed, minor changes, consisting in explanatory 
additions, enlargement of whatever is ascetic in the matter, and 
various abridgments. There are also many misapprehensions of the 

1 Exeget. Handbuch,, vol. ii. 2 Die Gescbiclite Tobi's, u. s. w. p. cxxii. et seqq. 

3 See Exeget. Handbuch, ii. p. 8., Einlcit. in das Buch Tobi. 



On the Book of Tohit. 999 

original. It is apparent besides that the translator had more than one 
text before him in some places ; and that the readings of both texts 
have been mixed up, more or less, since the version was made. Ilgen 
assigns it to a Constantinopolitan Jew of the twelfth century ; 
Fritzsche places it a century earlier. 1 

The other Hebrew text published for the first time by Seb. 
Miinster, and marked H. M. by Fritzsche, is simply the revision of 
an existing text, not a first translation. The old Latin seems to 
have been the basis on which the redactor worked, and which he 
treated with great freedom. The alterations made were many ; the 
original text being shortened considerably, and Jewish legendary 
materials contributing to the disfigurement of the story. Hence the 
author was a Jew; not a Christian, as Eichhorn 2 conjectured. Ilgen 
supposes that he lived in Italy in the fifth century ; but Fritzsche 
thinks that this Hebrew text is even younger than H. F. 3 

The old Latin text was first published by Sabatier from two MSS. 
of about the eighth century. This editor also published the various 
readings of another codex, defective in many places. He had also 
another MS. belonging to the Vatican (No. 7.); the text in which 
differed so much from that of the other MSS. that he judged it to 
be a different version, though taken from the same Greek original. 
But the codex is incomplete, containing no more than i. 1 — vi. 12., 
verses 13. and 14. being from the Vulgate. On comparing the 
latter with the other text, it is obviously later; and the Latin is less 
barbarous. 

Angelo Mai has also printed the citations of the book contained in 
the Speculum of Augustine, which exhibits a very old MS. 4 Judging 
from these, the text was revised and made easier, often enlarged, 
sometimes abridged. 

The language of the old Latin version is barbarous ; and the style 
diffuse and prolix. It shows the efforts of one who had very con- 
siderable difficulty in translating the Greek into Latin. In regard 
to the original of it, Fritzsche gives the following results of his 
investigations. 1. The greater part was made from the revised 
Greek text already described. 2. In various places the usual Greek 
text was the basis, as vi. 15 — 17., vii. 15 — 18., viii. 14 — 17., xii. 
6—9. 11—22., xiii. 6—18. 3. x. 1— xi. 19. is a mixture of 
both texts. 4. There is a tolerably numerous list of peculiar addi- 
tions to, and modifications in, the story. Probably the additions 
belonged, for the most part, to the Latins. 5 The version appears to 
belong to the second or third century, and to have been made in 
Africa. The text must have suffered many changes and corruptions 
in the course of transmission, since the various readings are so 
numerous. 

The Latin text in the Vulgate is a version which Jerome made 
from a Chaldee copy, as he himself relates. The Greek was not 
used. There is a considerable difference too between it and the 

1 See the Exeget. Handbuch, ii. pp. 9, 10. 2 Einleitung, p. 418. 

3 Exeget. Handbuch, ii. p. 14. 4 Spicilegium Komanum, vol. ix. after pp. 21 — 23. 

* Exeget. Handbuch, ii. Einleit. pp. 11, 12. 

3 s 4 



1000 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

Greek ; and the story in both is not exactly the same. Thus, the 
Greek text makes Tobit speak of himself in the first person, and 
relate his own life ; whereas Jerome's version speaks of him in the 
third person, and assumes another than Tobit as the author. The 
former is more copious in the moral part ; the latter, in the his- 
torical. 

It has been suspected, with good reason, that although the Greek 
text was not consulted in making this Latin version, the Chaldee 
original was not the sole basis of it. The language is too little 
Hebraising to justify the idea of its being a proper translation. The 
style also is unlike that of Jerome, being much less neat and elegant 
than his. It agrees in many respects with the old Latin text. 
Besides, there is a Christian and monkish character about the book as 
it appears in this form, which could not have belonged to the Chaldee 
exemplar. It appears more like an extract or abridgment from a 
larger work, filled out with other traits so as to give more concinnity 
to the narrative, and adapt it to practical use. Hence it must be 
inferred, that Jerome used the Chaldee original in a very cursory 
and arbitrary way. He abridged it without doubt ; and paid quite 
as much regard to the old Latin as to it, in making the present 
version. The Chaldee was the original basis, as he himself relates ; 
but he must have subsequently used the old Latin very freely in 
adapting his work to ecclesiastical use. There is more of the latter 
element in it than of the Chaldee. Accordingly, it is of a mongrel 
nature. It is strange that Jerome has never mentioned any but the 
Chaldee copy as the original of his version. As Fritzsche says, he 
has told the truth, but not the whole truth. 1 

The translation thus made soon supplanted the old Latin, and 
became the authentic one of the Latin church. As contained in the 
Vulgate, it is that adopted by Roman Catholics. Luther translated 
from it. The version in our English Bibles was made from the 
Greek. 

It has been disputed whether the contents of the book be historical. 
Scholz 2 , and most others belonging to the Boman Catholic church, 
suppose the narrative to be proper history. In favour of this view it 
is alleged, that the principal occurrence in the book is brought into 
such connection with other well-known events as no fictitious story 
exhibits. The minute, account of the tribe to which Tobit belongs, 
and of many family particulars, are also alleged in opposition to the 
assumption of a fictitious narrative. Historical and geographical 
notices, which are always accurate, are adduced on behalf of the 
same opinion. But these things weigh little over against the general 
tone and character of the work, with its marvellous contents, and its 
partial similarity to Job ; all favouring another view. 

Others, as Ilgen, suppose that the basis alone is historical, the rest 
being fictitious ornament. The essentials are real history ; but the 
filling up of the outline, and the dress in which it is clothed, belong 
to the writer himself; or were in part traditional, having been orally 

1 Eseget. Handbuch, ii. Einleit. pp. 12, 13. 

2 Einleitung in die heiligen Schriften, u. s. w. vol. ii. pp. 562, 563. 



On the Book of Tobit 



1001 



transmitted for centuries, and received a certain shape in their 
progress. Any attempt to separate the historical basis from the 
fabulous elements must, of course, be purely subjective ; since 
proper data are wanting towards the elimination of the respective 
parts. 

A third opinion is, that the whole is a fable, written for some 
definite purpose. This is held by Jahn, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, De 
Wette, Fritzsche ; and it appears to us most consistent with the 
contents and tone of the work, There are difficulties which cannot 
be cleared away on any other hypothesis. Such as, — 

Seven angels are represented as standing before God and bringing 
the prayers of the pious before his throne, (xii. 12. 15.) The angel 
Raphael, in a human form, gives a false account of his belonging to 
an Israelitish tribe and family ; and makes, with Tobias, a very long 
journey, above a thousand miles, (chap. v. and following.) The evil 
spirit Asmodeus burns with lust for the beautiful Sara, and through 
envy, all the men who approached his beloved were smitten ; while 
the smoke arising from the heart and liver of a fish drove him away ; 
and he was bound by an angel or good spirit in Upper Egypt, (vi. 9. 
20., viii. 2, 3.) It is difficult to see how the sparrows could have 
muted warm dung into' both Tobit's eyes at once, depriving him of 
sight ever after ; and how the gall of a very peculiar fish, or rather 
river-monster, could have restored it. Tobit and Sara are innocently 
reproached at the same time ; both pray for speedy death ; and both 
receive help from the angel Raphael. This is a peculiar coincidence, 
such as is most uncommon in actual life at the very same time. (chap, 
iii.) Again, Rages or Raga, in Media, was built by Seleucus !Ni- 
cator, according to Strabo ; and therefore it did not exist before 300 
B.C. ; whereas, it is here said to have existed in Alexander's time, i. e. 
700 B.C. It is true that Arrian mentions Rage in the campaigns of 
Alexander ; but he calls it a land or country (j^copos), and does not 
speak of a town. The book also states that Tobit was carried away 
by Shalmaneser to Mneveh ; whereas the tribe of Naphtali had been 
already transported by Tiglathpileser. (Comp. i. 2. with 2 Kings 
xv. 29.) 1 

The historical and geographical difficulties just mentioned are not 
all insuperable. Yet some appear as such. And there are certainly 
phenomena that are physically incredible, as the blinding and cure of 
Tobit. The miraculous in this instance takes the shape of the in- 
credible. Hence, most of the particulars enumerated are favourable 
to the hypothesis which finds nothing but fiction in the story. 
Besides, the chief names that appear are significant. Tobit or '21b 
in Hebrew, is my goodness; the son Tobias (n*?iD), good is Je- 
hovah, §c. 8fc. 

If then the history be fictitious, the question arises, What was 
the object of the writer ? What is the moral of the fable ? The 
narrative was intended to show that the truly pious man who perse- 
veres in relying on God, in good works, and in prayer, is well 



1 See Jaha's Einleit. vol. ii. p. 89 6. et seqq. 



1002 Introduction to the Apoc?ypha. 

rewarded at last. This may be deduced from the words of the angel 
to Tobit and his son in xii. 6 — 10. 

It is very difficult to determine the date of the book. At one 
time the prevailing opinion was, that Tobit wrote the first thirteen 
chapters ; Tobias, the son, the greater part of the fourteenth ; some 
unknown person, perhaps the grandson, having added the last four 
verses. Later critics, such as Arnold, Sainte-Croix, and Scholz, 
suppose that the father and son left family memoirs, which were 
compiled or put together in their present shape by some later 
person ; in the time of the Greek-Macedonian dominion, as Scholz 
conjectures. 1 But it cannot be made probable that the original was 
Hebrew, and is now lost. We must take the Greek in the Septua- 
gint as virtually the original, and reason from it to the authorship 
and time. Neither Philo nor Josephus refer to it ; and the earliest 
allusion is after the middle of the second century of the Christian 
era. Hence there is some reason to doubt, with Eichhorn, whether 
it be an ante-christian production. Fabricius places it 100 years after 
Christ. 2 We believe that Scholz's date is too early. The book 
represents seven archangels about the throne of God ; a doctrine 
which did not obtain currency among the Jews till after the reign of 
Darius Hystaspes ; for the custom of surrounding the throne of the 
Persian monarchs with seven councillors of state was introduced by 
that monarch, and gave occasion to the doctrine in question. We do 
not think that the work can be placed so late as the commencement 
of the Christian era ; for it is a Jewish production ; and the literary 
monuments of that time proceeding from Jews bear a different cha- 
racter. There is a simplicity and naturalness about it unlike the 
artificiality and superstitious air belonging to the productions of the 
first century before Christ. Hence it must be dated, with Fritzsche 3 , 
either immediately before, or immediately after, the Maccabean pe- 
riod. We prefer the latter. Ewald conjectures that it was com- 
posed by a Jew living in the remote East, not much later than the 
end of the Persian period ; and that it was translated out of the 
Hebrew original into Greek, perhaps in the last century before 
Christ, or still later. 4 The spirit of the w T ork is decidedly Palestinian. 
The tone of its ethical doctrine points to the Judaism of that land ; 
which is corroborated by the manner of writing. (See iv. 5. &c, vi. 
7. 14., viii. 3., xii. 8., compared with Wisdom viii. 7., 4 Mace. i. 6.) 
It does not necessarily follow that the author wrote it in Palestine ; 
though that is the most probable opinion. The rising Pharisaism of 
Palestine may be discerned in the four cardinal virtues set forth in 
the work ; viz., prayer, fasting, alms, and righteousness. 

The value of the book cannot well be denied by any impartial 
judge. The language, indeed, is Hebraising and marked with sole- 
cisms ; but it has a definite stamp. The story is characterised by 
originality and simplicity ; for which reason it has always been 
popular. Though the book of Job was evidently in the author's 

1 Einlcitung, vol. ii. p. 563. 2 Liber Tobiae, Judith, &c, p. 4. 

3 Exeget. Handbuch, ii. p. 16. 4 Geschiehte des Volks Israel, vol. iii. 2. p. 237. 



On the Book of Tobit. 1003 

mind, influencing particular portions of the narrative more or less 
prominently, there is a degree of independence far removed from the 
copyist. Here piety is delineated in an attractive and interesting 
manner. Its fruits are described in their salutary and conserving 
power over men. Human affection is also depicted in an artless and 
natural way. Religious earnestness pervades the work. The speeches 
and dialogues are appropriate. They are neither prolix nor unsuit- 
able. Persevering piety unaffected by prevailing corruption is seen 
in attractive colours, passing through severe trials, but rewarded and 
victorious in the end. Hence Luther pronounces a very favourable 
opinion upon the work, calling it useful and good to read as the 
production of a fine Hebreic poet. 

The Jews never regarded it as belonging to the canon, as Origen 
expressly testifies. This is confirmed by the fact that the oldest 
lists of the Jewish canonical books in the Fathers— in Melito, Origen, 
and Jerome — omit it; while Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory of Na- 
zianzum, Epiphanius, Hilary, and Jerome, declare it apocryphal. 

In the Greek church, Clement of Alexandria quotes xii. 8. as 
taken from rj >ypa(pri, Scripture ; and therefore he must have regarded 
it as a sacred book. Even Origen in two places cites it as Scripture 
or ypafoj, like Clement. But afterwards, in consequence of Origen's 
declaration concerning it, viz., that the Jews did not use it, and 
that they spoke against it (Epist. ad Africanum, and de Oratione), 
the Greek fathers put it among the apocryphal Avritings. 

There is some inconsistency in Origen where he speaks of Tobit 
in different places ; or perhaps he meant to place the opinion of the 
Jews and the diverse sentiments either of himself or of the Christians 
generally, in contrast. If he intended the latter, he has not ex- 
pressed his meaning clearly. De AVette 1 is right in supposing that 
there is either inconsistency or obscurity in his statements on the point. 
According to Athanasius, it was not among the canonical writings 
but among those which were proposed by the fathers to be read by 
such as were growing up and wished to be instructed in the word of 
piety. 2 It was read by the church as useful for edification; in 
catechising and preaching it was practically applied ; but doctrinally 
and theoretically it had no authority. This distinction, however, 
between canonical and apocryphal afterwards disappeared, if not in 
the Greek church generally, at least here and there ; for in the 
Xomocanon of the Antiochenian church, composed by Bar-Hebra3us, 
Tobit appeal's among the sacred books. 

In the Latin church the work was valued more highly than in the 
Greek. Thus Cyprian of the African branch frequently cites it ; 
and in such a way as indicates a high appreciation of its value. In 
one place he calls it divine Scripture. Ambrose calls it a prophetic 
book. Hilary states that some wished to add to the list of books 
Tobit and Judith ; and so to make twenty-four, after the number of 
letters in the Greek alphabet. Indeed, both Hilary and Augustine 

1 Einleit in das A. T. p. 40. 

2 See the original passage in Kirekhofer's Qudlensanimlung, p. 9. 



1004 Introduction to the Apocryjrfia. 

use it as canonical. The influence of the latter is seen in the re- 
ception of the book after his day. The third council of Carthage, 
a.d. 397, formally declared the canonicity of Tobit; a judgment also 
pronounced by the Roman bishop Innocent I. (a.d. 405) in an 
epistle to Exuperius, bishop of Toulouse. Jerome declared that it 
was not found in the Jewish canon ; but he himself expressed no 
opinion unfavourable to it. In the Roman church the book was 
canonical, as we see from the decree of Pope Grelasius. And though 
several fathers spoke of .it as the Greek church usually did ; yet in 
this they gave their private sentiments merely ; for among the Latins 
generally it was unquestionably canonical. The decree of the 
council of Florence in 1439, relating to the work, has been suspected 
as spurious. The council of Trent (1546) pronounced it canonical, 
adding an anathema against all who differed in opinion. We have 
already seen that Luther recommends the book as useful in pro- 
moting piety ; and Pellican speaks more strongly than he, saying 
that it is full of the most salutary instructions, pertaining both to 
faith and morals; and that both language and contents show the 
author to have been imbued with a prophetic and holy spirit. 1 



CHAP. IV. 

THE BOOK OF JUDITH. 



The book of Judith relates how a Jewish widow, by name Judith, 
delivered her native town Bethulia and all Israel from destruction by 
the Assyrians. 

Nebuchadnezzar, king of Nineveh in Assyria, made war against 
Arphaxad, king of Media, who resided in the fortified city of Ecba- 
tana. Having threatened all who would not aid him, he marched 
against Arphaxad, whom he slew, and wdiose city he utterly de- 
stroyed. After himself and his army, on returning to Nineveh, had 
indulged in revels for the space of 120 days, he resolved to wreak 
his vengeance on the whole earth. Holofernes was appointed 
general. Accordingly, the latter proceeded on his destructive cam- 
paign, w r ith orders to spare none that would not submit. With a 
well-equipped army he marched forward till he went down into the 
plain of Damascus. Nothing was able to withstand him ; he wasted, 
destroyed, and murdered. The inhabitants of the sea-coast begged 
for peace ; yet Holofernes cut down their groves and destroyed their 
gods, that all nations might worship Nebuchadnezzar alone. Ap- 
proaching Judea, he pitched between Geba and Scythopolis, that he 
might collect all the baggage of his army. Under these circum- 
stances the Jews were afraid of him, and were in great trouble for 
Jerusalem and the temple. They had but recently returned from 

1 See Fritzsche in the Exegct. Handbuch, ii. Einleit. pp. 18, 19. 



On the Book of Judith. ' 1005 

the captivity; and the house of God was not long re-dedicated. The 
high-priest Joakim wrote to charge the inhabitants to fortify the 
mountain passes ; and all the people humbled themselves before the 
Lord in supplication. Having inquired of the Canaanite princes 
who the children of Israel were, and having received a brief account 
of them from Achior the Ammonite, who advised him not to meddle 
with them except the latter sinned against their God, Holofernes 
despised the Deity, threatened Achior, and sent him away in custody 
to be delivered up into the hands of the children of Israel, where he 
related what had taken place, and was well received. The next day 
Holofernes's army marched towards Bethulia, laid siege to the place, 
and cut off the supply of water from it. In consequence of this 
measure, fearful want soon began to be felt in the city ; the people 
fainted and were dispirited, requesting the elders to deliver it up, who 
gained the space of five days, after which, should no help come, they 
promised to surrender. At this part of the history is introduced 
Judith, a pious, beautiful, and rich widow, who blamed the governors 
for their promise to yield, and advised them to trust in God. She 
engaged to do a thing which should be perpetually remembered, 
about which they were not then to inquire ; and to deliver Israel 
wiihin the five days that they had promised to surrender the city to 
their enemies. After a remarkable prayer to the Lord, she dressed 
herself gaily, and went forth by night from Bethulia with her maid 
and the necessaiy articles of sustenance. Having come upon the 
first Assyrian watch, she was conducted to the tent of Holofernes, 
where she was greatly admired for her beauty both by the general 
and his servants. He asked her who she was, and the cause of her 
coming. Accordingly, she addressed to him a flattering speech, 
which pleased exceedingly. She refused to eat of Holofernes's food, 
and repaired to the valley of Bethulia three successive nights to pray. 
On the fourth day the general made a feast for her sake, in order the 
more effectually to win her over to his desires. She complied with 
the invitation, and appeared so beautiful and attractive at the banquet 
that his heart was ravished with her. Through the joy of having 
her company he drank to excess. When all the guests had retired 
and she was left alone with Holofernes, she prayed to God beside 
the bed whereon he lay intoxicated, took down his falchion, and at 
two strokes cut off his head, which she gave to her maid to carry. 
The two, according to custom, went together to prayer, passed the 
camp, and arrived safely in Bethulia, where there was now great joy. 
Achior became an Israelite; and the head of Holofernes was sus- 
pended on the wall. As soon as it became known in the camp that 
the general was dead, there was great noise and consternation ; the 
Assyrians fled ; the children of Israel rushed out upon them ; the 
camp was taken and spoiled ; and there was great slaughter, the 
enemy having been pursued beyond Damascus. Much praise is given 
to Judith ; the high-priest comes to see her ; she receives Holo- 
fernes's tent, all his plate, beds, and vessels, and all his stuff. The 
women gather around and crown her with a garland of olive. 
She is then represented as singing a song of praise, escorted by all 



1006 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 



the people. Having entered Jerusalem, the people first worship 
Lord ; and continue feasting for three months. Judith goes back to 
Bethulia, where she lives in much honour the rest of her days., and 
dies at the age of 105 years, greatly lamented by all the people, who 
for a long time after her death were not disturbed by the fear of 
enemies, (ch. i. — xvi.) 

The story has been preserved in several texts, differing more or 
less from one another. There is first the Greek text connected with 
the Septuagint, which is the oldest of all. The question then arises, 
was the book written in Greek ? Or, was it translated into that 
language from the Hebrew or Chaldee ? Fabricius, Jahn, and Eich- 
horn, are in favour of the Greek being the original. But this 
opinion is manifestly incorrect. The language bears the stamp of a 
Hebrew original. Everything about it has a colouring which renders 
it not difficult to tell, for the most part, what was before the trans- 
lator. As examples which point to a Hebrew source, Fritzsche l 
adduces Kkypovopslv, v. 15. ; Sisdsro, v. 18. ; sv rais rj/juspais, which 
occurs ten times ; cr<fi68pa = 1^0, which is found about thirty times ; 
and the frequent phrase ttXtjOos irokv a<f>68pa. To these many others 
might be added. Besides, mistakes of translation appear in i. 8., 
ii. 2., iii. 1. 9, 10., and elsewhere. It has also been conjectured by 
Fritzsche, that the confusion which is connected with so many geo- 
graphical names belongs for the most part to the translator and to 
transcribers, rather than the original writer. We may therefore regard 
the Greek version in the LXX. as having been the original one 
taken from the Hebrew ; and, on the whole, faithfully representing 
the history as at first written. The character of this translation is 
literal. The person who made it appears to have followed the 
Hebrew very closely. Yet he was well acquainted with the Greek 
language, and could have moved more freely had he been disposed. 
According to Fritzsche, the original text has been most faithfully 
preserved in Cod. ii. 

There are two other forms of the text which depart in a measure 
from that just noticed as the fundamental one. These partake more 
of the character of elaborations or revisions of the original; since 
they present material alterations. The one is found in MS. 58. and 
in an old Syriac version printed in Walton's Polyglott; the other, 
in the old Latin and MSS. 19. 108. 

The Syriac version was. made from the Greek, and adheres to 
it verbally. The old Latin was also taken from the same source. 
In it, however, the diction is rough and barbarous ; a sort of Latinised 
Hebrew-Greek, as Fritzsche fitly terms it. The Greek too, was 
not unfrequently misunderstood by the translator. Sabatier printed 
it from five MSS. ; for a knowledge of which we must be content to 
refer to him 2 ; and also to Nickes 3 and Fritzsche. 4 

The text in the Vulgate version proceeded from Jerome. Here 

1 Exeget. Handbuch, ii. p. 116 

2 Biblioram Sacrorum Latinre Versiones Antique, vol. i. p. 744. 

3 De "Veteris Testament! codicum Grace-rum familiis dissertatio. 

4 In the Exeget. Handbuch, ii. 



the 



On the Book of Judith. 1007 

the form given to the materials constituting the story is considerably 
different. Some parts occupy another place. Thus xiv. 5 — 10. is 
at the end of the thirteenth chapter. Other parts are omitted, as 
i. 13 — 16. Some things are added, as after iv. 11. and xiv. 8. A 
good deal is abridged ; while other places are enlarged. There are 
numerous deviations in names and numbers ; and, on the whole, the 
sense is frequently dissimilar. The relation of this Latin to the 
other forms of the text has been copiously pointed out by Cappellus 1 , 
from whom Eichhorn, Bertholdt, and others, give many specimens of 
diversity. Hence it must be inferred that Jerome acted freely in 
rendering the text he had before him. He must have partly re- 
written the history. Welte 2 and Scholz 3 think that Jerome made it 
from the original Aramaean text; but his own words scarcely justify 
this opinion. It is plain that he had such a text before him ; which, 
however, could not have been the original whence the Septuagint 
Greek was taken ; but he did not translate that Aramaean into Latin. 
The Vulgate Latin is not a version from the Chaldee. What use he 
made of it in the production of his Latki text it is impossible to 
discover ; but it seems to have been slight and trifling. Jerome 
says that he amputated the most corrupt variety of many 3ISS. 4 , 
referring to the great variety in the Latin MSS. of the Versio Vet. 
Lat. We believe that he wrought for the most part on the basis of 
the old Latin version, which agrees in the main with his. It is on 
this principle that we find in his text Latin forms and expressions 
which he does not elsewhere employ. Thus the MSS. of the old 
Latin formed the chief basis of Jerome's translation ; but he pro- 
ceeded so hastily and perfunctorily, that he did not produce a 
good version. The Chaldee text he may have occasionally re- 
gained. 

It has been supposed by many that still other texts, in addition 
to the Greek and Latin with which we are acquainted at the 
present day, were known to the fathers ; because passages are some- 
times quoted by them which no longer exist. Thus citations from 
Origen's works are produced, which have not their originals in the 
present book of Judith. In like manner, a passage is quoted from 
Fulgentius of Ruspe, with the same view. But Fritzsche, after an 
examination of the particular places referred to, has shown that they 
are not citations from J udith. 5 

The question now arises, is the narrative in the book historical ? 
Have we in it a true history of actual occurrences ? Montfaucon, 
Du Pin, Huet, and others, looked upon the contents as historically 
true. But against this many considerations may be urged ; especially 
the great historical and geographical inaccuracies that occur. Thus 
Nebuchadnezzar governs in Nineveh, and is called king of Assyria 
(i. 7.); whereas his father had destroyed Nineveh, and he was king 
of Babylon. Arphaxad, king of Media, is said to have repaired 

1 Commentarii et Nota? criticte in Vetus Testamentum, p. 574. et seqq. 

2 In Herbst's Einleitung, vol. iv. p. 109. 3 Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 607. 
4 "Multorura codicum varietateru vitiosissimam amputavi." Prasf. ad lib. Judith. 

s Exeget. Handbuch, ii. pp. 122, 123 



1008 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

Ecbatana (i. 1.); was one of the most ancient Median monarchs ; 
and was slain by Nebuchadnezzar (i. 6.); whereas Arphaxad is the 
name of a country. The Jews bad returned from captivity (v. 19.); 
but Nebuchadnezzar had carried them away. Nineveh is still standing, 
though the Jews had returned from exile. It would appear from 
the narrative of Holofernes's expedition, that he must have passed 
twice through Palestine before he heard of the Jews, who were then 
unknown to him ; after which, their country is invaded. (Comp. ii. 
12, 13. 15, 16.; v. 1, 2, 3.; vii. 1.) The city of Bethulia is a place 
quite unknown. According to the account, it must have stood not 
far from Jerusalem, among the mountains ; or in the plain of Es- 
draelon. 

Various attempts have been made to bring the Nebuchadnezzar of 
the book into connection with history. Those who place the events 
related in the post-exile time, recognising in him a Persian king, 
have variously identified him with Cambyses, with Darius Hys- 
taspes, with Xerxes, with Artaxerxes, Ochus, &c. But the un- 
successfulness of these attempts has been sufficiently exposed 
by Eichhorn and Bertholdt. It is true that many circumstances 
favour the insertion of the history in the time posterior to the capti- 
vity, such as Jehoiakim and with him the Sanhedrim (iv. 8., xv. 8.), 
standing at the head of the nation, and no king being mentioned ; 
the temple having been re-dedicated by the people who had but 
recently returned from captivity (v. 18, 19., iv. 3.), &c. Yet other 
things are against it, as, Nineveh still standing, an expedition against 
Israel by Nebuchadnezzar of the kind mentioned, &c. &c. Nor have 
those critics been less unsuccessful who have inserted the history of 
the book in the time before the captivity. The laboured expositions 
of Scholz and Welte for this purpose are unsatisfactory. 1 Recognising 
in Arphaxad either Dejoces or his son Phraortes, they are puzzled 
by Nebuchadnezzar ; and accordingly their conjectures on this point 
are most diverse. Esarhaddon, Saosduchin, Kiniladan, Merodach- 
Baladan, Nabopolassar, have all been advocated. But why in that 
case is the king called Nebuchadnezzar ? The silence respecting 
a king in Judea is usually connected with the reign of Manasseh. 
But the difficulty still remains ; for Jehoiakim and the Sanhedrim 
then appear at the head of the nation in the time of the kings ; a most 
unusual circumstance ; and the people had lately returned from 
Babylon (iv. 3.), not simply Manasseh. Besides, no Jehoiakim is 
mentioned as high-priest at Jerusalem prior to the exile. The at- 
tempts to identify him with Eliakim under Hezekiah (and Man- 
asseh ?), or with Hilkiah under Josiah, are altogether arbitrary. In 
short, the perplexities arising out of the view which assigns the his- 
tory in the book to the pre-exile period are insuperable ; just as those 
attaching to the other view which fixes it in the post-exile time are. 
Hence we cannot adopt the opinion which finds actual history here. 
And it is also arbitrary to look for substantial history dressed out and 
disfigured with oral traditions and transformations, as Sandbiicher 2 

1 Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 590. et seqq. 

2 Erlaiiterungen der biblischon Geschichte, Theil i. p. 369. et seqq. 



On the Book of Judith. 1009 

For how can any one separate the essential and historical 
from the external shell within which it is encased? How can he 
divide the true from the foreign and false admixture incorporated 
with it? All that he can do is merely to rely on his own sagacity, 
and indulge in endless conjecture. 

Grotius l supposes that the contents of the book form an historical 
allegory relating to the insane attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes to 
exterminate the Mosaic worship in Judea. According to him its 
scope was to console and animate the people on the occasion of 
Antiochus's invasion of Judea. We must refer to Bertholdt 2 for 
some remarks against this hypothesis. 

No other tenable view of the book remains than that it contains 
pure fiction. Here it is of little moment what appellation be applied 
to it ; whether drama, with Buddeus ; or epopee, with Artopceus ; 
or apologue, with Babor ; or didactic poem, with Jahn ; or moral 
fiction, with Bauer ; or romance, with Sender ; or with Ewald, a 
prophetic-poetical narrative presenting a confused mixture of fiction 
and history. 

Though the history shows a strange jumbling together of materials 
belonging to different times ; yet when viewed as a whole, it is not 
without naturalness, simplicity, and originality. The principal cha- 
racters are well drawn, especially Judith herself. In minute colouring 
and verisimilitude, the writer has not been very successful. Viewed 
from a Christian stand-point, the character of Judith cannot be 
approved ; for although she displays patriotism, courage, and piety, 
she employs dissimulation, lies, and murder to accomplish her end. 
Such immorality, in connection with a rigid attachment to the law, 
cannot comport with the statute-book of the Christian ; though tl^ere 
is a parallel in the case of Sisera and Jael. As an instructive fission, 
which the work appears to us to be, it is well conceived and com 
by a Jew under the old dispensation. 

It is not easy to determine the time when the book was written. 
It is first mentioned by Clement of Rome, in his Epistle to the 
Corinthians. Neither Josephus nor Philo allude to it; nor are there 
any references to it in the New Testament, though some have thought 
so. No external evidence is available in deciding the point. We 
must look at the contents themselves. And even here there is 
much room for hesitancy and doubt. Movers and Ewald agree in 
placing its origin in the time of John Hyrcanus ; the former in 105 
or 104 B.C. 3 ; the latter, 130 B.C. 4 ; each arriving at his own con- 
clusion in his own way, from combining a number of circumstances 
in the book, with history. We do not attach any value or power of 
proof to the particulars adduced by either ; though believing that the 
second century before Christ is the most probable period of origin. 
The people of the Jews, it is implied, had been long oppressed ; the 
spirit of revenge had been nourished within them ; their ideas had 

1 Prolegomena in Librum Judith. 2 Einleitung, vol. v. p. 2551. et seqq. 

3 In the Bonner Zeitschrift fur Philosophie und katholische Theologie, for 1835, p. 47. 
et seqq. 

4 Geschichte des Volks Israel, vol. iii. p. 542. et seqq. 

VOL. II. 3 T 



1010 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

become legal, narrow, limited in the way they manifested themselves 
more and more towards the advent of Messiah ; the eves of the 
Sabbath and new moon are mentioned, and also the Sanhedrim 
(viii. 6., iv. 8., xv. 8.), pointing to the century immediately before 
Christ, if not to the Christian era itself. Besides, Jewish tradition 
places Judith in the Maccabean period. The writer then was a 
Palestinian Jew belonging to the second century before Christ; and 
the Greek translation in the Septuagint must have been made soon 
after the original appeared. Other forms of the text, as well as the 
old Latin and Syriac versions, belong to the Christian era, either 
the second or third century of it. The object which the writer 'had 
in view was to awaken, encourage, and comfort the long-oppressed 
covenant- people, by showing them that God never forsakes them 
as long as they are faithful to Himself, but makes a way of escape 
for them in the severest times by fearfully punishing their heathen 
oppressors. 

The book of Judith was excluded by the Jews from the number 
of their sacred canonical works. Among the early Christians, it 
was usually placed along with Tobit and judged of accordingly. It 
is quoted by Clement of Alexandria and Origen; in the Apostolic 
Constitutions; by Tertullian, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine. Such 
men as Origen and Jerome looked upon it as Apocryphal ; but 
thought that it was conducive to edification, and might therefore be 
read for its practical use. Others did not make that distinction ; 
and accordingly it was placed by the side of the canonical books. 
"W hat Jerome means by the Nicene synod putting it in the number 
of the holy books, it is difficult to tell. It is clear that the 
Latin church valued it more highly than the Greek ; for the 
Pseudo-Athanasius treats it like the canonical writings ; Augustine 
speaks of it as though it were canonical ; and the third council of 
Carthage expressly put it into the canon. The council of Trent 
took it formally into the number of the inspired writings. 1 



CHAP. V. 

ON THE REST OF THE CHAPTERS OF THE BOOK OF ESTHER, WHICH ARE 
FOUND NEITHER IN THE HEBREW NOR IN THE CHALDEE. 

The additions to the book of Esther which are found in the Septua- 
gint and old Latin version are : 1. A dream of Mordecai, which stands 
in the Greek before i. 1, but is in the Vulgate xi. 1 — xii. 6. 2. The 
edict of Haman, mentioned iii. 12. &c, and placed in the LXX. after 
iii. 13. ; in the Vulgate, xiii. 1 — 7. 3. A prayer of Mordecai and 
Esther; in the LXX. after iv. 17. ; in the Vulgate, xiii. 8 — xiv. 19. 



Comp. Eichhorn's Einleitung, p. 333. et seqq. 



On the Additions to the Book of Esther. 1011 

tne LXX. v. 1, 2. ; in the Vulgate, xv. 4—19. 5. Mordecai's edict 
mentioned viii. 9. ; in the LXX. after viii. 12. ; in the Vulgate, xvi. 
1 — 25. 6. The interpretation of Mordecai's dream, and the account 
of the proclamation of the Purim festival in Egypt ; in the LXX 
and Vulgate after x. 3. 

It is clear that these additions are spurious ; for they contradict, 
in various ways, the authentic text of Esther. Thus LXX i. 3., 
Vulgate xi. 2., xii. 1. do not agree with ii. 16. 19 — 22., iii. 1. 4. 
Again, LXX viii. 13. &c, Vulgate xvi. 22., disagrees with ix. 
20. 32. The prevailing religious tone is also unlike the Hebrew 
writer. 

In MSS. of the LXX., the additions are inserted in their suitable 
places; so that the whole appears as one book. Three MSS. 19. 
93 a , 108 b , present a very peculiar text, which was first exhibited by 
Ussher. 1 It is a later revision of the common one, presenting con- 
siderable changes in the language. Wherever the redactor did not 
understand the text before him, it was altered. Sometimes it was 
condensed ; at other times it was enlarged. Contradictions were 
also removed. In short, it is a thorough revisal of the older Greek 
text, made apparently at one time and on one principle. 

As to the original language of these Apocryphal additions, it was 
undoubtedly Greek ; though Scholz still argues that they were 
translated from a Hebrew or Aramaean original, because in the 
subscription appended to the LXX. it is said of the epistle of 
Purim, " In the fourth year of the reign of Ptolemeus and Cleo- 
patra, Dositheus, who said he was a pi'iest and Levite, and Ptolemeus 
his son, brought this epistle of Purim, which they said was the 
same, and that Lysimachus the son of Ptolemeus, that was in Jeru- 
salem, had interpreted it." From a part he infers the whole ; 
arguing that if this epistle were translated, all the additions were so. 2 
But the word ettlo-toXij, epistle, in the verse just given, should not be 
restricted, with Scholz, to one part of the additions. Bather does it 
characterise the whole book, which is regarded as an epistle of 
Mordecai to the Jews (ix. 20.). The strong Hebraisms adduced by 
this critic, for the same purpose, prove no more than that the 
writer was a Jew, and that he translated from the Hebrew. The 
style is inflated, ornate, and somewhat poetical. That of the ordinary 
and older text (A.) is simpler and more prosaic than the Usshe- 
rian (B.). 

It is difficult to discover the original author of these additions in 
A. Some have supposed that the translator of the book into Greek, 
and the writer of the Apocryphal parts, was the same person. 
Opposed to this, however, is the diiference of style. And there are 
contradictions between the two which render the identity utterly 
improbable. The genealogy of Mordecai is repeated. There is also 
a want of connection between the Hebrew and Greek parts, as well 
as an improper placing of the latter, which do not show the hand of 



1 Syntagma de Grasca LXX. interp return versione. Appendi 

2 Einleitung, vol. ii. p. 537. » 

3 t 2 



1012 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

one redactor. Hence the Greek translator and the writer of the 
additions were not one and the same. The subscription found in 
Greek MSS. may perhaps lead to a determination of the time and 
place at which these Apocryphal parts originated. By " this epistle 
of Purim" we understand the entire book of Esther; by Ptolemy, 
Philometor, as -Ussher and Scholz suppose. The subscription must 
be restricted to the translation of the Hebrew book, and does not 
refer to or include the additions which were afterwards appended 
to the version ; though the subscription was subsequent in time to 
the additions. The writer of them was an Egyptian Jew ; for the 
language is such as to show a cultivated Hellenist of that country. 
He belonged, as we have seen, to the second century before Christ. 
Numerous versions of these additions exist, — the old Latin, Coptic, 
Ethiopic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Arabic, and Slavonic. As 
all were made from the LXX., the same, position is occupied in them 
by the adventitious portions, as in the Greek whence they were 
taken. The most important of these versions are the old Latin and 
Vulgate. The former was printed by Sabatier from three MSS., 
and is incomplete, ,as well as corrupt. It is very .free in cha- 
racter, things being, added and subtracted not unfrequently. The 
translator was not very competent for his ta$k ; and therefore his 
diction is rough. Fritzsche thinks } that a mixed Greek text lay 
before him. For the most part it was A., but ,with elements 
belonging to B. ; and in some places decidedly B. The additions 
are particularly noticed by Fritzsche. Jerome, the author of the 
version in the Vulgate, had the text A. before him, and translated 
very freely. It was he who first put all the Apocryphal parts at the 
end of the book as additions. The first trace of their existence is 
met with in Josephus, who has incorporated their substance into his 
Antiquites, sometimes word for word, but oftener in his own way. 2 
Origen speaks in express terms of some passages in the book of 
Esther which were wanting in Hebrew 3 ; and the parts before us are 
frequently mentioned by succeeding fathers, as Epiphanius, Damas- 
cenes, Hilary, Augustine, &c. As they were incorporated with the 
S&ptuagint version, they were equally read with the canonical Esther, 
and had the same authority. Those who had any critical perception, 
saw that they did not properly belong to the book of Esther, and 
hesitated in consequence to grant them the same position. Jerome 
speaks unfavourably of them : but as they stood in the Vulgate, the 
council of Trent declared them to be canonical. Luther gives a 
higher estimate of them than most succeeding Protestants. 

1 Exeget. Handbuch ii. p. 75. 2 Antiqq. xi. 6. 6. 

3 In Epist. ad African. 



On the Book of Wisdom. 1013 



CHAP. VI. 

THE BOOK OF WISDOM. 

The oldest inscription of this book is the Wisdom of Solomon, (ro^ia 
XaXwficov, or ao(f>la SoXoyttwvros, which is prefixed to the Alexandrian 
version. After the time of Jerome and Gelasius it was called the 
Book of Wisdom, as it is still termed in the Vulgate. It was also 
called by Athanasius and Epiphanius, iravdperos crocfita, all-virtuous 
Wisdom. The appellation of Wsdom is suitable to the contents, 
which are instructions relating to wisdom, and recommendations of 
it to all, especially to kings and princes. 

It is divided into three parts viz. i. — v. ; vi. — ix. ; x» — xix. The 
first exhorts to strive after wisdom, and avoid everything which 
opposes it ; the second furnishes particular instruction respecting the 
manner of obtaining it, its nature and its blessings ; while the 
third recommends it through the medium of Jewish history. The 
first part is an address to all the rulers of the earth, enjoining them 
to apply themselves to wisdom as the sole condition of immortality, 
in contrast with the principles of the ungodly and free-thinkers who 
deny immortality and future recompense. The author describes the 
temporal and eternal lot of the pious ; the misery and destruction of 
the wicked. In the second part, Solomon is introduced as por- 
traying wisdom, stating what it is, how it comes forth from God by 
earnest prayer, and what it produces, viz. temperance, prudence, 
justice, and courage ; as also, how he himself had been exalted by it. 
The third part contains historical examples drawn from the Old 
Testament history, showing the happiness which had followed the 
pursuit of wisdom, with the fatal consequences of folly and idolatry. 

In each of the three parts wisdom is recommended, as the guide to 
a happy immortality with relation to free-thinking opponents (i. — v.); 
the conditions under which the possession of it is obtained are given 
(vi. — ix.) ; and history is adduced to set forth its claims (x. — xix.). 

In relation to the unity of the book, some have tried to impair it 
in different methods. Thus Houbigant, dividing it into two parts, 
viz. i. — ix. and x. — xix., regarded the first as written by Solomon ; 
the second, by a later Israelite, perhaps by the same who rendered 
the first into Greek. 1 Eichhorn, in like manner, makes two divi- 
sions proceeding from different writers, i. e. i. — xi. 1, and xi. 2 — 
— xix. 2 Bretschneider begins the second part with the twelfth 
ohapter, but subdivides the first into two pieces written by different 
persons, i. e. i. — vi. 8., and vi. 9 — x. 3 The first part is supposed to 
be the fragment of a larger work written by a Palestinian Jew ; the 
second, the Avork of an Alexandrian Jew at the time of Christ ; the 



1 Prolegom. in Not. Crit. in omnes V. T. libros, vol. i. pp. ccsvi. and ccxxi. 

2 Einleitung, p. 90. et seqq. 

3 Dissertatio de libri Sapientiae parte priore, &c. 1804. (three programmes. ) 

3 t 3 



1014 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

third, he places about the same period ; while the eleventh chapter 
proceeded from him who put the three parts together, for the purpose 
of uniting the second and third. Bertholdt makes the two divisions 
i. — xii. 27. and xiii. — xix., attributing them to different authors. 1 
Engelbreth's modification of Bretschneider's hypothesis, and Nach- 
tigal's most artificial dismemberment, are undeserving of mention. 
It is superfluous to examine the particular considerations adduced in 
favour of each hypothesis by its proposer. They have been examined 
and refuted by Bauermeister 2 , Grimm 3 , and Welte. 4 The argu- 
ments which are supposed to favour any separation into distinct 
pieces proceeding from two or more persons are insufficient, however 
plausible some of them may appear. The parts hang well together 
and form a united whole. The style and language too are no more 
different than what one might expect from the various matters 
touched upon. 

Single words and favourite expressions occur in all the parts 
much in the same proportion. It cannot be denied, however, that 
there is a perceptible difference between the contents and manner of 
the last ten chapters compared with the preceding nine. In the 
former, Solomon no longer appears as the speaker ; and the idea of 
wisdom does not guide the thread of discourse. But whatever 
difference there is between them in ideas, doctrine, and language, is 
resolvable into diversity of topics, and is more than counterbalanced 
by the peculiarities common to both, i. — ix. and x. — xix. Thus 
chapter xv. 1 — 6. is a prayer, like ch. ix. Compare also xiv. 25, 
26. and xvii. 18, 19. with vii. 22. That the principles taught in the 
second part are the same as in the first, may be seen from xii. 1 9, 20. 
Compare too, xviii. 13. with ii. 13., where the reference of the former 
to the latter is apparent. Certain ideas recur throughout ; while 
favourite expressions, turns of discourse, and single terms, appear in 
all sections. 5 Hence the unity of the book should not be disturbed. 

Those who have called the unity in question have generally 
spoken against the integrity, thinking that the work has not come 
down to us in its original form, but that it is imperfect either at the 
beginning or end, or has been enlarged by subsequent interpolations. 
Houbigant thought that, if the work was not a fragment belonging 
to a larger one, it must at least have had a commencement with 
an inscription, similar to those prefixed to Proverbs and Ecclesiastes. 
This is connected with the erroneous view that Solomon wrote the 
first part, and needs no refutation. On the other hand, Grotius, 
Calmet, and Eichhorn, looked upon the work as incomplete at the 
end. The view of Hasse and Heydenreich is similar when they 
believe that the work was not finished. But it is easy to see a proper 
conclusion at xix. 22. 

Later interpolations by a Christian hand were assumed by Grotius 6 ; 

1 Einleitung, vol. v. p. 2261. 

2 Commentarius in Sapientiam Salomonis, p. 3. et seqq. 

3 Commentar ueber das Buch der Weisheit, § 3 Einleitung, p. xxii. et seqq. 

4 Einleitung in die heiligen Schriften von Herbst, Heft iv. p. 173. et seqq. 
6 See Grimm, p. xxxiv. et seqq. 

6 Annotationes in Vetus Testamentum, ed. Vogel, vol. iii. p. 63. 



On the Book of Wisdom. 1015 

and though he did not specify them, he must have meant the passages 
which are paralleled in sense and expression by New Testament 
places ; and which he would explain by references to the latter. 
Thus the righteous man is said to possess the knowledge of God, and 
is a Teals Ssov, servant of the Lord ; language applied in the New 
Testament to the Messiah. (Comp. ii. 13. and Matt, xxvii. 43., John 
xix. 7.) His persecutors are represented as mocking him in the 
manner the crucifiers of Jesus derided Him : " Let us see if his words 
be true; and let us prove what shall happen in the end of him." 
(Comp. ii. 17. and Matt, xxvii. 40.) There are places also where 
the happiness of the future life is represented conformably to the 
New Testament as a shining (comp. iii. 7. and Matt. xiii. 43.), as 
a ruling and judging of the world (comp. iii. 8. and Matt. xix. 28.). 
But the knowledge of God is often attributed, in the prophetic 
writings of the Old Testament, to every true Israelite; and irah 
&sov, servant of God, is only a translation of the Hebrew phrase 
employed of the Messiah in Isaiah's prophecies (Hi. 13., liii. 11.), so 
that it might be applied to the righteous man, or to Messiah his 
head, by one unacquainted with the New Testament. What is said 
of the future destiny of the righteous man in iii. 6. 8. is borrowed 
from Daniel vii. 18. &c, xii. 1, 2. Hence we cannot allow of inter- 
polations from the New Testament by a Christian hand. 1 

Others have supposed that the entire work may have been com- 
posed by a Christian. But as the passages on which they mainly 
rely are those just noticed, we need not farther allude to their view. 
It is very true that some places in the New Testament, to which we 
shall afterwards refer, present considerable similarity to passages in 
this work ; but the harmony may be better explained by supposing 
Wisdom the original. The general complexion of the book agrees far 
more with an Alexandrian-Jewish authorship than a Christian one. 
We cannot explain it as a whole from the Christian stand-point. A 
philosophical Jewish spirit breathes throughout it. Yet Dr. Tregelles 2 
has referred to a passage in the Muratorian Canon which he tries to 
explain in such a manner as to favour the idea of this book having 
been written after the commencement of the Christian dispensation. 
The book Sapientia being introduced into the list (" et Sapientia ab 
amicis Salomonis in honorem ipsius scripta") in connection with the 
writings of the New Testament, he supposes that it was a recent 
work by a recent writer, and ranked as to date with the others that 
are there mentioned. In support of his conjecture he also adduces, 
with much ingenuity, a sentence in Jerome's preface to the books of 
Solomon ; and a passage in Eusebius where that historian mentions 
the book of Wisdom when speaking of Irenaeus. If the place of the 
Muratorian Canon were incorrupt, Tregelles's reasoning would 
commend itself to our approbation. But we believe it to be tho- 
roughly corrupt ; and must therefore infer, with Bunsen 3 , that before 
the sentence where Sapientia Solomonis is spoken of, the epistle to 

1 See Eichhom's Einleit. p. 129. et seqq. 

2 See the Journal for Classical and Sacred Philology for March, 1855, p 37. et seqq. 

3 Hippolytus and his Age, vol. ii. p. 135. et seqq, 

3 T 4 



1016 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

the Hebrews had been mentioned as written by some friend of Paul. 
Hence the Wisdom of Solomon refers to the book of Proverbs as 
having been compiled in the same manner by friends of Solomon. 
The fact that the Proverbs, or the latter part of them at least, was 
written out by the men of Hezekiah (ol fyikoi 'E£Wou, LXX. xxv. 1.) 
establishes a connection between the Muratorian fragment and the 
book of Proverbs. Hegesippus, the author of the Muratorian Canon, 
misunderstood, or misinterpreted from want of recollection, the Greek 
words in Proverbs xxv. 1., by putting the friends of Solomon for 
of Hezekiah. Hence we agree with Bunsen, and with Tregelles 
himself in his Lecture on the Historic Evidence of the New Testa- 
ment, in applying the Wisdom of Solomon to the book of Proverbs, as 
was not uncommon in the second century,. and not to the Apocryphal 
production. 

In a passage of this kind, where the reading and interpretation are 
attended with so much uncertainty, and the evidence in favour of 
Sapientia applying to the Proverbs or Wisdom preponderates on 
neither side, we should be generally guided by other considerations. 
And such there are that appear to us to render the composition of 
the book of Wisdom before the Christian era very probable. 

The original language was not Hebrew, as those who believe that 
Solomon was the writer are obliged to maintain. Others, however, 
who do not hold the Solomonic authorship, think that it was composed 
either wholly or in part in that tongue, as Grotius, Houbigant, 
Bretschneider, and Engelbreth ; the first critic imagining the entire 
work ; the second,, the first nine chapters ; the third and fourth, the 
first five chapters, rfco have been written at first in Hebrew. R. Asaria 
thought that it was written in the Chaldee tongue ; not the Syriac, as 
stated by De Wette. 1 So also Faber. These conjectures have been 
sufficiently refuted by various writers, as Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Hasse, 
Grimm, Welte, and others. It is useless to appeal to Hebraisms, 
and to alleged mistakes of translation from the Hebrew in favour of 
a Hebrew original, for the examples are all nugatory. The origi- 
nality of the Greek text is unquestionable. The style is much better 
than one would expect even in the free version of a Hebrew text. 
There are a number of pure Greek expressions, which could not have 
proceeded from a translator in so great abundance. Examples occur 
in iv. 2.,x. 3. 12., i. 11. 16., ii. 6. Besides, there are many compound 
words for which corresponding terms would be sought in vain in 
Hebrew. See x. 3., xi. 8., xiv. 23., ix. 5., i. 4., xv. 4., v. 22., vii. 
1. 3., ii. 19., xvi. 3. There are also numerous paronomasias, asso- 
nances, plays on words, and oxymora, whose original is Greek. 
Comp. vi. 22. &c, vii. 13., i. 10., iv. 2., vi. 10., xvii. 8. 12. &c, i. 8., 
v. 10., vi. 6., xix. 21. In short, the characteristic colouring of the 
language speaks decidedly in favour of a Greek original. 2 

With regard to the author, it was commonly thought at one 
time that he was Solomon. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, 

1 See Welte, H. iv. pp. 183, 184. note. 

2 See Hasse's Die Weisheit Salomo's, p. 196. et seq.; and Grimm, p. xi. 



On the Booh of Wisdom. 1017 

Tertullian, Lactantius, and R. Azarias, shared this opinion. Even 
in modern times, some entertained the same view, as Tirinus, Huet, 
and Houbigant in part. It is useless at the present day to refute it. 

Augustine regarded Jesus Sirach as the author, but afterwards 
retracted the opinion. What gave rise to this strange hypothesis 
was the confounding of two similar books, Sirach and Wisdom. 

Jerome appears to have leaned to the opinion that Philo was the 
author. This view was held by many rabbins, among whom is 
K. Gedaliah; and by many Christian writers too, as Nicholas de 
Lyra, Galatinus, Lud. Vives, Luther, Strigel, Rainold, &c. But 
notwithstanding the general similarity in both writers, there is also a 
great difference between them. In Wisdom the Platonic philosophy 
does not appear to have penetrated and saturated the writer's mind, 
as in Philo. The diversity is particularly manifest in the description 
of divine wisdom as related to Philo's ideas of wisdom or the logos. 
With the latter aocpla and \6yos were either identical or most inti- 
mately related ; while in our book all traces of the speculative use of 
X070S are wanting. In Philo, Jewish Alexandrinism appears in a 
much more developed form than in Wisdom. Besides, the style and 
manner are very different from those characteristic of Philo the 
Alexandrian. 1 Hence some moderns have modified the opinion so 
far as to say, that it was not the well-known Philo of Alexandria, 
but an older Jewish philosopher of the same name, who either com- 
posed it throughout, as Medina, Canus, Pamelius, Drusius, Werns- 
dorf, Buddeus, and others suppose ; or put it at least into its present 
form, as Bellarmine and Huet think. But that elder Philo men- 
tioned by Josephus 2 was a heathen, not a Jew; and could therefore 
have had nothing to do with the book of Wisdom. 

Faber 3 thought that the book was written by Zerubbabel, who, 
as the restorer of the temple, might be called the second Solomon. 
But the time of Zerubbabel is too early. The passage in ix. 8. suits 
Solomon alone, and not any other who might be called Solomon by a 
figure of speech ; for the throne of his father is spoken of (ix. 
7. 12). 4 

All attempts to discover the author with particularity must be aban- 
doned. The writer either of a part, or of the whole, as different 
critics suppose, was not a Palestinian Jew at the time of Antiochus 
Epiphanes, else he would not have written in Greek, but in Hebrew. 
Nor was he a Jew of Antioch before Epiphanes, according to Paulus ; 
for so much Grecian culture could scarcely have been exhibited by 
an Antiochenian of that day. Nor did he belong to the sect of the 
Therapeuta?, as Eichhorn 5 , Gfrorer 6 , and Daehne 7 suppose, princi- 
pally on account of the statements in hi. 13. &c. and xvi. 28. The 
former passage does not connect the unmarried state but childlessness 

1 Comp. Grimm, p. li. et seqq. 2 Contra Apion, i. 23. 

3 Prolusiones vi. super librum Sapientise, v. 4 See Grimm, pp. xliii. xliv. 

5 Einleit. p. 150. 

6 Philo und die Alexandrinische Theosophie, vol. ii. p. 265. et seqq. 

' Geschichtliche Darstellung der judisch-alexandrinischen Religions-Pbilosophie, Ab- 
theil. ii. p. 170. 



1018 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

with blessedness ; and the latter speaks of prayer and praise at the 
dayspring much in the same manner as Psalm v. 4., lxxxviii. 14. with- 
out reference to the Therapeutse and Essenes. Thus there is no 
evidence that the writer was a member of the sect of the Therapeutse 
or Essenes. 1 

The author must have been an Egyptian Jew who lived most pro- 
bably at Alexandria, for he was well acquainted with Grecian literature 
and the philosophy prevalent in that place. It is ridiculous to 
make him, with Cornelius a Lapide and Goldhagen, one of the 
seventy-two Greek interpreters ; as if the fabulous account of the 
orgin of the Septuagint were literally true. 

The time at which he lived would appear from the general cha- 
racter of the work to have been that of the Ptolemies. Grimm 
makes the reign of Ptolemy Physcon (145 — 117) the boundary 
before which it could not have been written, because then the Jews 
in Egypt first began" to be systematically persecuted ; but Welte, 
217 B.C., which latter is too early, for we cannot approve of the 
mode in which the evidence for it is adduced by that critic. Grimm's 
opinion is the most probable. A century earlier than Philo seems 
to be required for the degree of development which the religious 
philosophy of Alexandria had attained in the interval between the 
writers. Hence the author of Wisdom may have lived about 
120 B.C. 

The aim of the author may be said to be, to recommend wisdom, 
and to describe the blessings it brings both to individuals and peoples. 
But this is too general a statement. What led him to compose the 
book must have been connected with the circumstances of the time 
at which he lived. Historical relations must not be overlooked in its 
origin. The connection between Israel and Egypt gave rise to the 
reflections of this enlightened and patriotic Jew. His countrymen 
suffered from the oppressions of the Ptolemies in Egypt. Hence he 
was led to bring to the recollection of these tyrannical monarchs 
what had once befallen the Egyptians on account of their treatment 
of the chosen people ; and at the same time to show them, by the 
example of Solomon, the only way in which they could have a happy 
and victorious reign. Besides, he meant to comfort and admonish 
the oppressed Israelites, who had been seduced in part into Egyptian 
idolatry, under their severe misfortunes ; to strengthen them in fidelity 
to God ; and to open up the prospect of a speedy deliverance from 
servitude. The warnings and exhortations which the book exhibits 
against the principles of apostate freethinkers were intended, partly 
for such unbelieving Jews as denying immortality led a vicious life 
and had therefore become heathens in disposition and manner of 
thinking; and partly for the heathen themselves, to show the 
folly of idolatry. Divine wisdom was alike opposed to the per- 
versions of Judaism and the nature of heathenism. It conducted to 
virtue and immortality. Thus the occasion of the book must be 
sought in the historical circumstances of the times at which it ap- 

1 See Grimm, p. lvi. 



On the Book of Wisdom. 1019 

peared. The writer had a definite object. When he saw his 
countrymen oppressed by unbelieving rulers of the world, their 
apostasy from the national faith, the prevalence of heathen ido- 
latry, leagued as it was with severity against the covenant-people, 
his spirit was stirred within him ; and he held forth wisdom as the 
true antidote to the false principles of apostates — the only way to 
happiness, the safeguard of all prosperous rule. While, therefore, he 
intended to teach the degenerate Jews that better way which they 
had forsaken ; his aim was also to establish and comfort the pious 
sufferers under their hard treatment; without forgetting to recommend 
wisdom to the rulers and princes of the world from whom came the 
oppression under which Judaism suffered. 

The anonymous author personates king Solomon whom he intro- 
duces as speaking, because that monarch was with the later Jews 
the ideal of Wisdom. By ascribing his book to him, he was likely 
to procure greater acceptance for his doctrines. We find a similar 
personation of Solomon in Ecclesiastes, of which Wisdom is an 
imitation. 

The book is very valuable as an exposition of the Jewish religious 
philosophy at a certain period. It contains a system of Jewish 
dogmatics, according to the principles held by the anonymous writer. 
The views propounded respecting God and His providence, the ori- 
ginal state of man whom God is said to have created immortal and 
to have made an image of His own eternity (ii. 23.), of the entrance 
of sin and death into the world, a future state of rewards and punish- 
ments, &c. &c. are correct and scriptural. With the exception of 
some extravagant statements, the contents are of a pure, noble, and 
elevated character, such as few philosophers of the ancient world 
could have promulgated. The work is not imbued with the strong 
partialities and prejudices of antiquity. The meritoriousness of sa- 
crifices, lustrations, asceticism, does not appeal'. The narrowness of 
the views entertained by the majority of the Jewish nation on moral 
subjects, and the particularism which led them to hate all other 
peoples, are not in the book. The author knows only the pious and 
the godless in the world : so that he must have been a liberal and 
enlightened Jew, who had risen above the littleness of his country- 
men by the force of an enlarged philosophy based upon intelligent 
piety. Nothing can be more elevated than his portrait of a wise man 
(i. 4 — 6. 15., ii. 23., vi. 19.). We need not therefore be surprised 
at the very favourable reception the book has always met with in 
ancient and modern times. Its religious and moral tendency entitles 
it to preeminent distinction. 1 Hence it is difficult to see why it 
should be excluded from a canon which has Esther in it. 

The style is very unequal, as Lowth justly remarks. It is pom- 
pous, sublime, turgid, diffuse, simple, tautological, varying with the 
subject, and seldom tedious. The tautologies are the result of 
Hebrew parallelism ; and the figures are numerous. The author's 
mastery of Greek is everywhere visible ; the care and art he employed 

1 See Eichhorn, p. 93. et seqq. 



1020 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

are patent to every reader. Epithets are accumulated in rich pro- 
fusion, wherever they seem to give oratorical fulness or effect. Thus 
wisdom is depicted by a great variety of adjectives, all suitable and 
select. (See vii. 22. &c.) No less than twenty-one predicates are 
employed in describing it. As an active energy of God in the 
physical and moral world, it is represented as identical with the Spirit 
of God. (i. 7., vii. 7. 22., ix. 17., xii. 1.) 

The religious doctrine of the author was derived from various 
sources. In the first place, there are ideas and sentiments which he 
received by tradition, or drew from the holy books of his nation. 
He was a Jewish philosopher; and as such inherited the current 
opinions of his countrymen. But in the second place, he lived at 
Alexandria, where a peculiar philosophy then prevailed. Platonism 
had been incorporated there with the modes of thinking current 
among the cultivated. Hence we find many Platonic along with Jewish 
ideas. Upper Asia had also contributed to the prevailing faith of the 
learned and reflecting at Alexandria. Accordingly, there is a strong 
Alexandrinism in the book • that is, the religious philosophy which 
we find in Philo- Platonism, as it has been termed, pervades it to a 
considerable extent. Indeed, this could scarcely have been other- 
wise in the production of a cultivated and pious man living at 
Alexandria ; for however strongly he may have been attached to 
the faith of his own nation, surrounding influences must affect his 
mind. 

It is difficult, if not impossible, to separate the elements of the 
book and assign particular sentiments to their respective sources. 
We may indeed with some probability, divide off from the rest 
such ideas as were either contained in, or inferred from, the sacred 
national writings of the Jews ; but to discriminate the remaining sen- 
timents, and to trace their origin, is scarcely possible. Certain views 
derived from different sources mediately or immediately, had become 
amalgamated with one another in Alexandria among philosophical 
men, when the writer lived and wrote. 

Plato's doctrine of the World-Soul is seen in what is said of 
Wisdom in i. 7. ; it is the Spirit of God which fills the world and 
embraces the universe. 1 Plato conceived of the soul as a substance 
which existed before the body ; so the author of Wisdom asserts the 
preexistence of souls in viii. 19, 20. In like manner, the Platonists 
looked upon the human body as a prison of the soul ; and therefore 
they declaimed severely against it : hence our author says in ix. 15., 
" the corruptible body presseth down the soul, and the earthy taber- 
nacle weigheth down the mind that museth upon many things." The 
school of Plato reduced all the virtues to four, which stand here in 
the same manner (viii. 7.). As in Plato, so here, the Deity is not 
expressly and directly called a being of light. But from the mani- 
festations of Deity both leave us to infer that they considered Him 
as a Being of light; for Plato represents the World -Soul, which 
is an emanation from God, as consisting of light ; and the author of 

1 See, however, Grimm on the opposite side, p. 1 7. et seqq. 



On the Booh of Wisdom. 1021 

our book describes the Spirit of wisdom as a fine, pure emanation 
(aTravyaa-fjua) of the everlasting light. It is certain, however, that in 
many places . this Jewish philosopher has departed from Platonic 
views where they were inconsistent with the national faith. He 
proceeded independently, so as either to mould and modify, or else 
entirely to abandon the ideas of Plato. World- Soul as conceived 
of by Plato, and the Spirit of God as depicted by the anonymous 
author of Wisdom, are the same; the latter being taken from the 
former, 

From an oriental source — the Chaldee or Persian philosophy — 
various traits in the book were also derived. The leading oriental 
tenet was the efflux of all things from God. This is observable in 
our author's description of the Spirit. Yet it is apparent that he did 
not derive much from the Chaldee or Persian philosophy, and nothing 
directly. It was from a Greek system tinged with such oriental- 
ism that he received the few subordinate features observable in his 
work. 1 

Whether our author's idea of the divine wisdom, moulded by the 
pantheistic-emanistic system of the East, conceived of that wisdom 
as an independent and personal existence, who came forth from 
God before the creation of the world and by whom God made the 
world ; or as a poetical personification of the wise God himself (see 
vii. 7. 25, 26., viii. 1 — 6.), is doubtful and disputed. In opposition to 
Daehne and others we adopt the latter view ; and would compare 
with the passages referred to in the book of Wisdom similar ones in 
Proverbs iv. 7. &c, viii. 26., especially vii. 25, 26., and Sirach xxiv. 
1. &c, where there is a poetical personification of wisdom. Hence 
we are inclined to believe that the writer of our book need not have 
derived his doctrine of divine wisdom from any but a Jewish source, 
and that he did not represent it as a hypostasis any more than do 
some passages in Proverbs and Sirach, of which the most prominent 
are Prov. viii. 22. &c, and Sirach xxiv. 1. where there is a still 
bolder prosopopoeia. 2 But Philo soon after mixed Jewish and Pla- 
tonic ideas respecting the divine understanding, which with him seems 
to be synonymous with the divine wisdom of this book, calling it the 
eldest son of God, an image of God, a teacher of men, a high priest, 
an intercessor, a mediator. This comes near the Christian idea of the 
divine wisdom as manifested in Christ. The epithets applied both 
here and in Philo to the divine wisdom and divine understanding 
find their highest truth and realisation in Christ alone. It is worthy 
of notice that the spirit of wisdom in Philo is different from the divine 
understanding. 

Our limits will not allow of a full discussion of the peculiar doc- 
trines promulgated in the book of Wisdom and the soui'ces whence 
they were taken. The subject was investigated by Eichhorn ; since 
whose time it has been discussed in different ways by Bauermeister, 
Grimm, Daehne, Gfrorer, and Welte. The last writer argues against 

1 See Eichhorn's Einleitnng, p. 106. et seqq. 

2 See Grimm, Einleit. pp. xv. xvi. ; and Commentar, p. 154. 



1022 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

the idea that the book presents an Alexandrian-Jewish philosophy of 
religion, contending that the doctrines are entirely of Jewish growth 
and origin, whatever Alexandrinism appears in the work being taken 
from the same Jewish source. He will thus have no foreign ele- 
ments in it — no Platonic or Asiatic philosophy. 1 Scholz 2 appears 
to be of the same opinion. But we cannot assent to it; though in 
some particulars Daehne and others have carried their hypothesis 
too far. 

The Greek text of the work has descended in a tolerably pure 
state. Some mistakes of transcribers may be corrrected by critical 
documents, as in vii. 29., xi. 6., xii. 20., xix. 10. Only a few cor- 
ruptions are so general and ancient as to make the original reading un- 
certain, such as in xii. 6., etc yusaov /nvaraOstas aov, where neither MSS. 
nor versions afford assistance. The richest apparatus of critical read- 
ings is in Holmes and Parsons's edition of the Septuagint. Thilo's 
collations of nine Paris MSS. were never published. 3 There are 
several ancient versions of the book, all taken from the original 
Greek. 

The Latin in the Vulgate is older than Jerome, and is so literal as 
to be occasionally unintelligible. Erroneous interpretations are not 
very frequent in it, such as ex nihilo for avroa^shtws, ii. 2. ; quoniam 
antecedebat me ista sapientia for ore aurcov rjyslrac crocf)ia, vii. 12.; cum 
abundarent for airopovvTss, xi. 5.; and fyfyos 6^6 in xviii. 16. taking 
the nominative instead of the accusative. It has also a few incon- 
siderable additions to the Greek text. (ii. 8. 17., v. 14., vi. 1. 23., ix. 
18., xi. 14.) One example only of omission (ii. 4.) deserves notice. 
But the MSS. and editions of this old Latin version often differ from 
one another. 

The Syriac version printed in the Polyglotts adheres more closely 
to the Greek towards the commencement than the close. Many of 
its peculiar readings are nothing more than mistakes of transcription. 
It is freer and more paraphrastic than the Latin ; and contracts or 
enlarges the original without any essential alteration of the sense. 
Whatever deviations, therefore, it exhibits from the Greek text are 
unimportant, though they are tolerably numerous. The date of this 
version connot be exactly determined. 

The Arabic translation, also printed in the Polyglotts, adheres 
closely to the Greek text, rendering it for the most part literally, 
and never diverging into wide paraphrase, though sometimes a little 
explanatory. Its additions to the original are but few, and those 
only of secondary importance, as in iii. 9. On the whole, it is an 
accurate and faithful translation. The date is uncertain. 

The Armenian version is, perhaps, the most literal of all. It fol- 
lows the Greek text mostly word for word ; and often imitates the 
play upon terms not unskilfully. The author was evidently well 
acquainted with Greek ; and few cases of misunderstanding it can be 
imputed to him, as in iv. 2. The version was made towards the 

1 See Herbst's Eirtleit. H. iv. p. 161. et seqq. 2 Einleitung, vol. iii. p. 216. 

3 See Specimen exercitationum criticarum in Sapientiam Salomonis. Hal. 1825. 



On the Book of Wisdom. 1023 

middle of the fifth century, and is of inferior importance to none 
other. 

Of the Coptic, Ethiopic, Gothic, Georgian, and Slavic versions we 
need not now speak. 

The first traces of the book belong to the apostolic time, if Paul 
be supposed to have had reference to it in some of his epistles. The 
passages in which it is most probable that the apostle had certain 
places of Wisdom in his mind are, Rom. i. 20 — 32., comp. Wisdom 
xiii. 1 — 16.; Rom. i. 21., comp. Wisdom xi. 16.; Rom. ix. 21., comp. 
Wisdom xv. 7. ; Rom. ix. 22, 23., comp. Wisdom xii. 20, 21. ; Rom. 
xi. 32., comp. Wisdom xi. 23. ; Rom. ii. 4., comp. Wisdom xv. 1. ; 1 Cor„ 
vi. 2., comp. Wisdom iii. 8.; 2 Cor. v. 4., comp. Wisdom ix. 15.; 
Eph. vi. 13 — 17., comp. Wisdom v. 18 — 20.; 1 Thess. iv. 13., 
comp. Wisdom iii. 18. In the Catholic Epistles and that to the 
Hebrews similar allusions may be found. Various places in the 
Epistle of James in particular show reminiscences of our present 
book, as Schneckenburger, Theile, Kern, Stier, and Bleek have per- 
ceived. Those pointed out in the Gospels are more than doubtful. 1 
We look upon it as a most improbable supposition on the part of 
Grimm and others to resolve such coincidences into a common Jewish 
education and manner of thinking, or into the common use of Old 
Testament passages. 

After the New Testament, the earliest recognition of the book is in 
the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. The supposed allusions 
in Barnabas, and Hegesippus (ap. Euseb. ii. 23.) cannot be sustained. 2 

The work was never in the canon of the Jews. Josephus and 
Philo do not refer to it. In like manner it is wanting in the cata- 
logues of Origen and Jerome. Some have thought that Melito's list, 
in Eusebius, mentions it; but the right reading (irapoLiAias, f) ical 
aocj>ia) excludes it there. Athanasius, Cyril, Gregory of Nazianzum, 
Epiphanius, Jerome, and others expressly or virtually pronounce it 
apocryphal. Yet it is certain that it was used by many both in 
public and private at a very early period ; and that the majority of 
readers, as well as of the fathers themselves, made no distinction be- 
tween it and the canonical writings, but assigned it the same value 
and authority. The more cautious and discerning, indeed, of the 
lathers (as Jerome) made the distinction that it might be employed 
for the edification of the people, not for establishing the authority of 
ecclesiastical doctrines ; but this was not commonly observed. Hence 
Clement of Alexandria quotes Wisdom by the introductory phrase 
i) 0s [a ao(p(a \sysi, divine Wisdom says', and in another place by 
Solomon says. Origen refers to it as Osios \6yos, the divine Word. 
Both Tertullian and Cyprian allude to it as the Wisdom of Solomon ; 
the latter asserting, By Solomon the Holy Spirit shows, and the former 
quoting it like canonical Scripture with the formula, as it is written. 
Athanasius quotes it as Scripture ; and Cyril refers to it as the pro- 

1 See Nitzsch in the Zeitschrift fur Christliche "Wissenschaft, u. s. w. 1850,lSros.47— 49.; 
and Bleek neber die Stellung der Apokryphen, reprinted from the Studien und Kritiken, 
p. 73. et seqq. 

2 See Wisdom, si. 21., xii. 12.; Clement's epist. § 27.; and Grimm, p. lxxii. 



1 024 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

ductlon of Solomon. Epiphanius, who often adduces it against the 
Gnostics, employs the expressions, Solomon says, As the Scripture says, 
As the most blessed of the prophets says. Eusebius appeals to 3 Kings 
(1 Kings in Hebrew) and the book of Wisdom as Beta ypatf>tj, divine 
Scripture. He also refers to the latter as a dslov Xoyiov, divine oracle. 
Hilary refers to the anonymous author as a prophet : and Augustine 
says of Sirach and Wisdom, that since they deserved to he taken into 
authority, they are to he numbered among the prophets. In another 
work he calls Wisdom an inspired book. Isidore affirms that the 
church of Christ honours and preaches the divine books Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, and Judith. The third council of Carthage put 
it among the canonical writings ; as did the Council of Trent at a 
later period. 



CHAP. VII. 

THE WISDOM OF JESUS THE SON OF SIKACH. 

The Greek title of the book is ^ocpla 'Irjcrov vlov 'Zstpax, the Wisdom 
of Jesus son of Sirach ; the Latin, Ecclesiasticus, an ecclesiastical 
reading-hook ; the latter showing that it was publicly used in the 
churches, as we infer from statements of Jerome and Rufinus. Atha- 
nasius x says that it was put into the hands of catechumens, and 
made the basis of instructions in morals. It is less likely that the 
Latin name was given to distinguish it from Ecclesiastes, which it 
resembles in various respects. The Greek fathers called it iravdpsros 
aocpia or \6yos, treasure of virtue. 

The resemblance of the book to the Proverbs of Solomon, both in 
matter and form, is obvious. Here wisdom is represented as the 
source of all virtue and happiness. The morality is based on the belief 
of a recompence in this life, just as that of the Proverbs is ; and, 
therefore it is not of the elevated and spiritual nature of the New 
Testament ethics, where the motives are mainly drawn from another 
state of existence. The view given of the world is prudential. Yet the 
moral precepts here presented are excellent and valuable. That they 
do not reach very far, nor penetrate beyond the best form of Judaism, 
is natural in the circumstances ; yet they show reflection and mental 
culture. The writer had evidently thought much on the varied 
aspects of human life. He had studied the manners and fortunes of 
mankind with the calmness and maturity of a philosopher. Accord- 
ingly, he has embodied the result of his own thoughts and experience. 
And in addition to that, he has drawn from the Proverbs of Solomon, 
and the writings of older moralists. Maxims of other Israelite gno- 
mologists are largely incorporated with the book. On several topics, 
indeed, there is greater fulness and more connexion than in the Pro- 

2 Epistola eopraaTiKri, Opp. vol. ii. p. 39. 



On the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach. 1025 

verbs of Solomon, as is evident from ch. xii. 8 — xiii. 23., xv. 11 — 20., 
xvi. 26— xvii. 20., xix. 6—17., xxiii. 16—27., xxvi. 1 — 18., xxx. 
1 — 13., xxxvii. 27 — xxxviii. 15.,xxxviii. 24 — xxxix. 11. And ch. i. 
— ix. xxiv. may be compared with Proverbs i. — ix., being evidently 
taken from the latter. 

The book commences with a description of the origin and value of 
wisdom, and the way in which it may be attained, (ch. i. il) In the 
twenty-fourth chapter wisdom is personified, as in the eighth chapter of 
Proverbs, and pronounces her own eulogy. The concluding chapters 
contain a review of the most eminent men belonging to the Hebrew 
nation, in the order of the Scriptures, (ch. xliv. — 1.) In the inter- 
mediate parts occur manifold proverbs, general and particular, re- 
specting many duties, in the course of which the author exhorts, 
encourages, warns, and describes. 

No general plan is observable, notwithstanding the connexion of 
various parts. A continuous thread does not run through the whole. 
There is no pervading unity. Yet we should not be disposed to call 
it a rhapsody, with Bertholdt. It is rather a collection of proverbs 
and sententious sayings. Tetens l conjectures that the writer has 
followed the order of the decalogue in the annunciation of his moral 
precepts ; but this is incorrect. And when Sonntag 2 explains the 
want of connection in the work, partly by disorder afterwards intro- 
duced among the separate sections, partly by the peculiar form in 
which it has come down to our time, viz. a mere rough outline which 
was intended to be filled up and moulded into a united whole, his con- 
jecture is groundless. 

It will be readily conceived that the book can scarcely be divided 
into parts or sections. Eichhorn's division into three portions, viz. 
i. — xxiii., xxiv. — xlii. 14., xlii. 15—1. 24., as well as his notion that 
these three were at first distinct works which were afterwards united 
by the author into one, must be rejected; though it opens up a way 
of explaining the different position occupied by the sections from 
ch. xxx. 25. and onward, in the Complntensian, Paris, and Antwerp 
text; and in that of the Vatican, Alexandrian, Alcline editions. 
But formidable objections lie against this view, as Bretschneider has 
shown. 3 As the author wrote in Hebrew or Aramaean, two Greek 
translators must be assumed, which is impossible, since the Greek 
text in the Complutensian is the same as our common one. 

Jahn divides the work into three sections, the first embracing the 
first forty-three chapters ; the second from xliv. to 1. ; and the third 
the remainder. 4 On the other hand, Scholz 5 discovers twelve sections 
with peculiar inscriptions ; without pointing out any general division 
comprehending both these and the remaining parts of the book. On 
the whole, Jahn's is the best partition that has been proposed ; though 
neither it nor any other can be entirely satisfactory in a work which 
is so desultory and irregular in the nature of its contents. His first 

1 Disquisitiones generates in Sapientiam Jesu Siracidse, p. 51. et seqq. 

2 Commentatio de Jesu Siracidse Ecclesiastico non libro, sed libri farragine, 1779, 8vo. 
8 Liber Jesu Siracidse, Prolegomena, p. 18. et seqq. 

4 Einleit. vol. ii. pp. 934, 935. 5 Einleit. vol. iii. p. 183. et seqq. 

VOL. II. 3 u 



1026 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

division in particular is not a continuous section, but is intermingled 
with, and interrupted by, materials foreign to the context. 

The author calls himself Jesus the son of Sirach, of Jerusalem 
(1. 27.); and that is all the information which we have respecting his 
person. Grotius thinks he was a physician, because xxxviii. 1 — 15. 
contains a great encomium on physicians ; and others suppose him 
such on account of rules of health being given (xxxi. 21, 22.), and 
because he betrays pathological knowledge (xxiii. 16, 17., xxv. 17., 
xxvi. 12., xxx. 24., xxxi. 20.). Linde 1 conjectures he was a priest, 
because the Hebrew priests were also physicians. George Syncellus 2 
calls him high priest of the Jews ; and so he has been identified with 
Jesus or Jason. But the character of Jason is inconsistent with that 
idea. How could one who purchased the high priest's office from 
Antiochus Epiphanes, who set aside his own brother Onias the Third, 
and began to introduce heathen customs into Judea, write a work of 
this nature, which speaks with so great respect of Mosaism ; and of 
rectitude, order, justice, in commendatory terms ? There is little in 
the contents to justify the supposition that the writer was a priest. 
Neither his language nor his matter is in favour of it. 

The age of the book is not easily ascertained. The author's eulogy 
of great men terminates with Simon the high priest. (1. 1. &c.) But 
as there were two of that name it is uncertain which is meant. The 
first was Simon, surnamed the Just, who lived in the reign of Ptolemy 
Lagi (300 — 292 B.C.). The other was Simon the Second, who lived 
in the reign of Ptolemy Philopator (217 — 195 B.C.). Besides the 
encomium on Simon the high priest, another circumstance apparently 
indicating a contemporary is the notice in the prologue prefixed to 
the work by the grandson of the writer, who translated it into Greek, 
viz. that coming into Egypt in the thirty-eighth year when Euergetes 
was king, he found the book. Here again, however, there is un- 
certainty, since there were two kings of Egypt called Euergetes, — 
Euergetes I., son and successor of Ptolemy Philadelphus (247, &c. 
B.C.); and Euergetes II. or Physcon (169 &c. B.C.). 

The author complains in his book of the oppression and injuries 
which his nation was obliged to suffer, (xxxvi. 9. &c.) The high 
priest also is spoken of as one who fortified the city and protected 
the temple. (1. 4.) These circumstances militate against the idea of 
Simon 1. being meant; since in his day, whether under Ptolemy 
Philadelphus, or in the time immediately after his reign, the people 
remained unmolested by persecution. Hence it is thought that Simon 
II. must be meant, with Ptolemy Philopator, who, according to the 
third book of Maccabees, persecuted the Jews. This view is con- 
firmed by the circumstance that the writer manifests great enmity 
against the Samaritans and Idumeans, which was kindled afresh at 
the time by both these separating from the Jews, and by the former 
erecting a temple on Mount Gerizim in honour of Jupiter. In con- 
nection with this it should be noticed that the thirty-eighth year of 

1 Uebersetzung des Buchcs Jesus Sirachs Sohn, Einleit. p. 8. 

2 Chronographia, p. 276. 



On the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Stretch. 1027 

Euei'getes's reign cannot apply to Euergetes I., who reigned no more 
than twenty-five or twenty-six years, but may refer to Euergetes II. 
or Physcon, who reigned so long, if his regency be included. Such is 
the view of Prideaux, Eichhorn, Bretschneider, Berthoklt, &c. But 
Jahn raises doubts against it because the encomiums in the fiftieth 
chapter do not agree so well with Simon the Second as with Simon 
the Just, high priest from 300 — 292 B.C. He also regards the times 
implied in the writer's description as concordant; and the thirty- 
eighth year in the prologue as referring to the translator's age, and 
not to the reign of Euergetes, since neither the first nor the second 
monarch of that name reigned so long. Accordingly, Jahn thinks 
that the book was written 292 — 280 B.C., while the translator lived 
under Euergetes I., between 246 — 221 B.C. 1 

It is difficult to decide between these conflicting views. One thing 
is probable, that Simon the Just is meant ; for the encomiums agree 
best with him. And it is not at all necessary to suppose, as is 
implied in the reasonings just specified, that the writer of the book 
was contemporary with Simon the high priest. The latter may have 
been dead for a time, for aught that is implied in the fiftieth chapter ; 
and all that is written of him has been got from recent oral tradi- 
tion. Thus the way is prepared for the conclusion that the Euergetes 
spoken of by the grandson was probably the second of that name ; 
which is confirmed by the fact that the thirty-eighth year cannot be 
predicated of the first, but may be of the second, provided his regency 
be included. We do not fix upon Euergetes II. for the reason that 
seems to have influenced Winer -, viz. that the canon was not con- 
cluded in the time of Euergetes I. ; for in our opinion it was then 
closed. Neither can we adopt his and Jahn's view of the thirty- 
eighth year referring to the translator's age, and not to the reign of 
Euergetes. It is true indeed, as Winer observes, that the Greek 
construction is, grammatically speaking, more correct if the thirty- 
eighth year allude to age ; but correct grammar need not be looked 
for in the Greek version. There is no reason for specifying the 
translator's age in connection with Euergetes. Neither is this the 
obvious meaning. Hence we refer it to the reign of that monarch. 
Ptolemy Euergetes II. began to reign 169 B.C.; and if we subtract 
thirty-eight years from that we obtain the year 131. He may thus 
have made his translation about 130 B.C. About fifty years may be 
allowed for the interval between the grandfather and grandson, 
which brings the composition to 180 B.C. We believe the date 
now given is nearer the true one than that assigned by Hitzig 3 , 
who thinks that Jesus son of Sirach wrote during the Maccabean 
struggle for freedom, i. e. about twenty years later. This is derived 
from some passages which the critic identifies with specific particulars 
in history; hazardously as we believe (iv. 28., x. 8 — 10., xxxii. 22. 
&c, xxxiii. 1 — 13., xxxvi. 13 — 17.). And it is certainly more correct 
than that of Scholz, who supposes the writer to have lived about 

1 Einleit. vol. ii. p. 930. et seqq. 

2 Reahvbrterbueh, article Jesus Sohn Sirachs, vol. i. p. 555. 

3 Die Psalmen, vol i. p. 118. 

3 u 2 



1028 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

300 B. C. 1 The circumstances adduced in favour of so early a date 
are very slender ; and the time of closing the canon interferes. Had 
the work been composed so early it would have been put into the 
canonical list. 

The prologue states that the book was originally written in 
Hebrew, and translated by the grandson of the author into Greek. 
Jerome states that he saw the Hebrew, and that it had the title 
D vt^lp, moral maxims. It has been doubted, however, by Scaliger, 
Bretschneider, and others, whether Jerome really had the original 
document before him. It may have been a Syriac or Chaldee version 
in Hebrew letters. There is good reason for entertaining these 
doubts, if, with Lowth, Eichhorn, and Bretschneider, we understand 
that Hebrew was the original language of the book. For that, how- 
ever, Staudlin and Bertholdt think there is no immediate necessity. 
If the word Hebraicum, employed by Jerome, and its corresponding 
'EfipaicTTl in the prologue, mean Syro-Chaldaic, as they may with 
propriety, in that case there is nothing against the fact of Jerome's 
having the original in his hands. One thing is certain, that the 
original was either Hebrew or Aramaean. And we are inclined to 
hold that it was the former. If so, it is most probable that Jerome 
merely saw a Syriac version in Hebrew letters ; which, having but 
hastily looked at, he mistook for the original. The nature of the 
Greek diction employed shows that it is a slavish and stiff imitation 
of the Hebrew. The structure is entirely Hebraic. There is a close 
and uniform parallelism of members, which shows a Jew thinking in 
some other language than Greek. The translator has often followed 
the order of the words as they stood in the original text, and put 
both terms and sentences together with great carefulness, so as to re- 
present the Hebrew very closely. He has sacrificed elegance, if he 
were capable of it, to literality. Hence the Greek is of a kind that 
can be easily rendered back into Hebrew, and the new version would 
have all the appearance of an original. This remark is verified by 
an inspection of Lowth's Hebrew translation of the twenty-fourth 
chapter, in which Wisdom is personified ; where the elegant critic 
" has endeavoured as much as possible to preserve, or rather restore, 
the form and character of the original." 2 There are also allusions 
to the Hebrew and misunderstandings of it, which can only be ex- 
plained by the original, such as vi. 21., " for Wisdom is according 
to her name, and she is not manifest unto many." Here there is an 
allusion to the Arabic Jc, to know, and in Hebrew, to be concealed. 

This cannot apply to the Greek word for wisdom, viz. aocfrla, but 
to the Hebrew nto^JJ. Jn xxiv. 27. we read, " He maketh the 
doctrine of knowledge appear as the light, and as Geon in the time 
of vintage." Here there is a mistake in the word <p(bs. The 
original was "ViN|> = "ViN*3, as in Amos viii. 8., meaning like the Nile. 
In xxi. 12. we have the noun iriKpia, bitterness ; whereas it should be 
rebellion, according to the context. The translator confounded rnb, 

1 Einleit. vol. iii. p. 195. 

* Lectures on Hebrew Poetry, p, 207. et seqq. Stowe's edition. 






On the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach. 1029 

bitterness, and nnip, rebellion. In xliii. 8. we read, "the month is called 
after her name," /u,rjv Kara to ovojxa avTijs (asXrfvrjs) scttiv ; where /irjv 
must represent rnj (month), and asX^vrj, PIT (moon). 

The translator gives us to infer from his prologue that he was a 
Palestinian Jew, because he came to Egypt at a certain time, and 
there rendered the book into Greek. His name he himself does not 
tell ; but the author of the Synopsis Sacrae Scriptura? in Athana- 
sius's works, Epiphanius, and other ancient writers call him Jesus 
son of Sirach. It is questionable whether this was not a mere con- 
jecture on their part. Some have supposed that he added the fifty- 
first chapter; if so he must have written it in Greek, whereas it 
bears the same character and was taken from the same original as the 
rest of the book. Hence the supposition is groundless. 

There is a second prologue in the Complutensian Bible and the 
Vulgate, which is spurious. It is taken from the Synopsis Sac. 
Script, and is printed by Linde, Bretschneider, Augusti, and Apel. 

The Greek text has suffered many corruptions and interpolations, 
in consequence of its frequent use in the Greek church. These it is 
now impossible, in most cases, to discover and exclude. The varia- 
tions in Greek MSS. have naturally passed into editions. Thus in 
the Sixtine edition, x. 21., xi. 15, 16., xvi. 15, 16. are omitted. The 
last chapter is wanting in many MSS. and editions ; and the Com- 
plutensian Bible has the additions xvi. 10., xix. 2, 3. 5. 18, 19. 21., 
xxii. 6. &c, xxiii. 5. &c, xxv. 16. 12., xxvi. 19—27. The different 
arrangement of sections from ch. xxx. 25. and onwards, in the Vati- 
can, Alexandrian, and Aldine text, and the Complutensian, Paris, 
and Antwerp editions, may be seen from the following tables: — 

Vatican and Others. Ccnplutensian and Others. 

xxx. 25 — 32. . - - - xxxiii. 12. &c. 

xxxi. ----- xxxiv. 

xxxii. ----- xxxv. 

xxxiii. l.&c. - xxxvi. 1. &c. 

xxxiii. 12. - - - - xxx. 26. 

xxxiv. - xxxi. 

xxxv. - xxxii. 

xxxvi. 1 — 15. - xxxiii. 1 — 16. 

xxxvi. 17 — 31. ... xxxvi. 14. &c 

These variations and many others, for there is hardly a verse in 
Avhich there is not some discrepancy in the Greek MSS., cannot have 
been entirely owing to transcribers' mistakes. In most cases, per- 
haps, they originated in design. Many additions have been taken 
from the Fathers by transcribers or readers ; and Bendtsen has shown 
that various interpolations in the Complutensian edition owe their 
origin to Clement of Alexandria. 1 They are found at least in his 
works. The Vatican text is freest from insertions and uncritical 
alterations. 

Whoever wishes to know the ethics of the Jews after the exile 
must come to this book as a document of great value. The author 

1 Specimen exercitationiim criticarum in Vet. Test, libros Apocryphos e scriptis patrum 
et antiquis verskmibus, &e., p. 32. et seqq 

3 c 3 



1030 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

addresses himself, for the most part, to the middle class, seldom rising 
to those in higher stations. Only once does he speak to the work- 
master and the artificer, the physician, and the learned (xxxviii.); 
and twice to princes and rulers. The book is not without its defects, 
notwithstanding its value. Light and darkness are mixed. The 
prejudices of ancient times are seen in connection with recent ideas. 
God is rudely represented as taking vengeance, and using for that 
purpose fire, hail, famine, &c. (xxxix. 28.) ; the feeling of hatred to 
national enemies, for whose destruction prayer is uttered, appears in 
xxxvi. 2. &c. The old national belief that virtue is rewarded by 
earthly prosperity manifests itself (xi. 22.); and vows have^ merit 
assigned to them (xviii. 22.). The author gives expression to some 
Messianic hopes, as the glorification of Jerusalem, the reunion and 
restoration of the tribes of Jacob, (xxxvi. 1 — 17.) His dogmatic the- 
ology is little worth, being defective and erroneous. Whether 
there be any traces of Alexandrian theosophy in the production, 
is not very clear. Gfrorer ', who maintains the affirmative, refers to 
the twenty-fourth chapter, as presenting the Alexandrian idea of 
wisdom. Certainly the first twenty-one verses do not harmonise 
with the old Israelitish faith. Daehne 2 himself, who repudiates the 
idea of any Alexandrian elements in the book, is compelled to re- 
cognise them in a few places, and arbitrarily to assume interpolation. 

Yet the influence of Greek culture and philosophy is observable 
only here and there ; the Jewish mind of Palestine being reflected 
throughout both in the substance and form. The views of the world 
and of life exhibited belong essentially to the old type of Hebrew 
nationality, rather than to the later and more philosophic sentiments 
of the Jews who resided in Egypt. 

The style is poetical, resembling that found in all the better 
didactic writings of antiquity ; the only difference is, that it is more 
highly coloured, as well as more abundant in images and figures. 

The Talmud speaks of Jesus son of Sirach or Sir a, and puts his 
book of morals among the sacred writings of antiquity (among the 
D'Q-iri?, or hagiographa). Some sentences are certainly cited from it. 
But in other places, proverbs are quoted, under the name of Ben- 
Sira, for which either no analogous passages, or none whatever, can 
be found in the Greek Sirach. The latter comprehend various senti- 
ments which are trifling or absurd ; on which account, the reading of 
Ben-Sira's proverbs is forbidden by many Rabbins as pernicious to 
the soul. 3 

There are two small collections of proverbs alphabetically arranged, 
still extant under the name of Ben-Sira. Some few of these also 
appear in Jesus Sirach, almost in the same words ; others resemble 
in their contents proverbs existing in his book, though the terms 
expressing them are different; while no parallels to others can be 
found. Was then the Ben-Sira, the author of these two alphabetical 
collections, the same as Jesus son of Sirach ? Their identity is 

1 Philo und die Alexandrinische Theosophie, Abtheilung ii. p. 31. et seqq. 

2 Geschichtliche Dnrstellung der jiid. Alex. Eel. Philos. Abtheil. ii. p. 129. et scqq. 

3 See De Wette's Einleit. pp. 470, 471. 



On the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach. 1031 

assumed by Huet, Wolf, Fabricius, and Bertholdt. Against this, 
Bartolocci and others urge the difference of name KTD~}3, Ben- Sir a, 
and vlhs Xsipd-%, equivalent to rryp-|3. Besides, Eichhorn l adduces 
the fact that Ben-Sira is called the son of the prophet Jeremiah, which 
Jesus Sirach was not. Neither of these considerations seems to us 
of any weight, because Sira is merely a softer form of Sirach ; and 
the fable about Ben-Sira being Jeremiah's son is inconsistent with 
the usual appellation Ben-Sira, i. e. son of Sira. But though the 
person called Ben-Sira in the collection of Proverbs edited by 
Drusius 2 , and in the Talmud, may be identical with Jesus Sirach, 
we cannot believe that the proverbs ascribed to him were really his. 
Interpolation is too arbitrary an assumption for those to resort to 
who ascribe all to Jesus Sirach the author of Ecclesiasticus. With 
the exception of a very few in the Talmud, which are both substan- 
tially and verbally Jesus Sirach's sentences, the rest which are there 
adduced, and the collections edited by Drusius, proceeded from other 
persons. As the name of Jesus Sirach was celebrated in the later 
gnomic poetry of the Jews, like Solomon's in the earlier, collections 
of moral maxims which harmonised Avith the spirit of his book, were 
attributed to him. His name would be a recommendation ; and 
therefore it was freely used to set them off. There is no comparison 
between the value and excellence of those really belonging to the 
author, and such as were subsequently current under his name. The 
latter are often trilling, puerile, absurd. Besides, the Chaldee dialect 
in which they are expressed is so impure and mixed with Greek 
words as to repudiate Jesus Sirach's authorship. 

Three ancient versions of the book of Sirach have been printed ; 
viz., a Syriac, an Arabic, and a Latin. 

The Syriac is not a faithful representative of the Greek. The 
text is sometimes shorter, sometimes longer. Either the Greek copy 
from which it was made must have been much altered and corrupted ; 
or the Syriac was derived from another source. Eichhorn and 
Bretschneider take the former view ; while Bendtsen, Bertholdt, and 
others, suppose that the Syriac was from the original Hebrew text 
or a later recension of it. It is difficult to decide which is the more 
probable ; for the evidence adduced on both sides is slender and 
precarious. We incline to the view of those who think that the 
Greek whence the Syriac was made had been greatly altered. The 
age of this Syriac translation is uncertain. It is older than the 
Arabic, which latter follows it so slavishly as to show itself the 
daughter. 

There is another Syriac version of the book which still remains 
imprinted. It is in the Syro-Hexaplaric codex at Milan; and is 
furnished with Origen's critical signs. But no proper examination 
of it has yet been made, as far as we know. 

The Latin version in the Vulgate is older than Jerome. It is in 
a very rude and barbarous style, and departs from the Greek to about 
the same extent as the Syriac. The Greek copy whence it was taken 

1 Einleitung, p. 83. et segq. 

2 Ben-Sirre proverbia vcrsione latina et commentaris illustr. J. Drusius. Franek. 1 597, 4to. 

3 u 4 



1032 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

must therefore have been disfigured by additions, omissions, altera- 
tions, and transpositions. Bretschneider x has adduced many ex- 
amples to show its Greek origin ; such as, Greek words left un- 
translated, and mistakes. But Sabatier 2 thinks the original was 
Hebrew ; and Bengel 3 compared the first and thirty-fourth chapters 
in the Greek and Latin texts, to show that Sabatier's view is correct. 
He is obliged, however, to admit, that in rendering from the Hebrew 
original, the Latin translator used the Greek as an auxiliary. Here, 
again, the evidence is of such a nature as not to preponderate much 
to either side. We prefer the former opinion. This version is very 
ancient ; since the Fathers of the second and third centuries quote 
its words. It belongs either to the end of the first or the beginning 
of the second century before Christ. 

Some have thought that the earliest use of the book is to be found 
in different places of the New Testament, especially in the epistle of 
James. It is alleged that there are various allusions which show an 
acquaintance with it on the part of those sacred writers. But the simi- 
larity between passages in our book and in the New Testament may 
possibly be accounted for otherwise. It is possible that the writers drew 
from a common oral tradition ; or, similarity of topics may have led 
to analogous modes of expression. The likeness is not very definite 
or marked ; and therefore some have doubted whether the Christian 
writers actually employed the book. The nearest to an apparent 
quotation is James i. 19., from Sirach v. 13. Others are, Sirach 
ii. 15. compared with John xiv. 23. ; xxix. 15. with Luke xvi. 9. ; xi. 
10. with 1 Tim. vi. 9, 10. ; xxxiii. 13. with Rom. ix. 21. ; xi. 18, 19. 
with Luke xii. 19. ; xv. 16. with Matt. xix. 17. ; xxv. 11. with James 
iii. 2. ; xxxv. 11. with 2 Cor. ix. 7. We hold that the New Testament 
writers did draw from it both ideas and words. The oldest reference to 
it seems to be in the epistle of Barnabas. The passage there quoted 
stands in the Apostolic Constitutions. Clement of Borne cites it ; and 
also Ignatius. It was much read in the early churches ; and Athanasius 
informs us that it was put into the hands of catechumens as a moral 
catechism. Origen, Anastasius of Antioch, and Ambrose, cite it as 
Scriptura; Epiphanius terms it divina Scriptura; Cyprian as, divina 
Scriptura Spiritus Sancti. Augustine calls it liber propheticus, a pro- 
phetic book. In polemics it was used without hesitation for the con- 
futation of opponents, as by Augustine. The third council of Carthage 
grounded its statement respecting the rebaptism of certain persons 
upon the book ; and opponents never thought of asserting in reply 
that the basis was not canonical. Jerome, however, expressed himself 
cautiously and critically regarding it, that it shoidd be used only for 
the edification of the people, and not to confirm the authority of ecclesi- 
astical doctrines. Yet the book continued to be employed without 
any question being raised respecting its canonicity down to the 
council of Trent, when it was formally put into the canon. 

1 Liber Jesu Siracida? Greece, &c. Excursus i. p. 699. et seqq. 

2 Bibliorum Sacrorum Latina? versiones antiquae, vol. ii. p. 390. 

3 Ueler die muthmassliche Quelle der alten Lateinischen Uebersetzung des Buches 
Sirach. in Eichhorn's allgeni. Bibliothek. Theil vii. p. 832. et seqq. 



On the Book of Baruch. 1033 

The Jews never placed it among their canonical Scriptures. Hence 
it is not in the lists of Philo, Josephus, Melito, Origen, and Jerome. 
Still the last writer says that it was put along with Ecclesiastes and 
the Song of Solomon. Weighty authorities among the Rabbins 
speak highly of it ; and in the beginning of the fourth century, the 
Babylonian Talmud puts it among the cthubim, using that term in a 
loose sense. 1 

The English version appears to have been made from the Greek 
text as exhibited in the Complutensian Polyglott. This is matter of 
regret ; since that form of the text is the most corrupt that has been 
printed. The Vatican is the purest. 



CHAP. VIII. 



THE BOOK OF BAKUCII. 



In the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Chaldeans 
Baruch is said to have w T ritten in Babylon the words of this book, 
and to have read them before Jechoniah and the assembled people, 
with the princes and nobles. On that occasion they humbled them- 
selves before the Lord, made a collection of money, and sent it to 
Jerusalem with the silver vessels of the temple made by king 
Zedekiah after Nebuchadnezzar had carried away Jechoniah to 
Babylon, requesting that the high priest Joakim and the rest would 
spend the money on the sacrifices, and pray for the life of Nebuchad- 
nezzar and his son. The book was to be read in the temple, on the 
feasts and solemn days. After this narrative follows a confession 
and prayer (i. 15 — ii. 35.); to which is immediately appended a short 
prayer for mercy uttered in distress and exile (iii. 1 — 8.). Israel is 
then directly addressed, (iii. 9 — iv. 29.) Lastly, Jerusalem is ex- 
horted to take comfort and rejoice ; for she shall return out of 
captivity with glory, (iv. 30 — v. 9.) 

The book properly consists of two sections; viz. i. 1 — iii. 8., and 
iii. 9 — v. 9. : i. 1 — 9. is introductory, at least to the -first part. 

Bertholdt argues that iii. 1 — 8. is distinct from chapters i. and ii., 
and cannot have proceeded from the same writer, because the author 
of the epistle in the first two chapters could scarcely have sunk back 
into the complaints of a troubled spirit, which fill up the prayer, 
after the fine hopes uttered at the end of the second chapter ; because 
no traces of the use of Jeremiah's prophecies and Daniel's book are 
visible, the piece (iii. 1 — 8.) having greater originality ; because the 
twofold appellation Israel and Jud ah (ii, 1. 26.) does not occur, but 
simply the people of Israel ; and because there are fewer Hebraisms. 2 
To these arguments, however, De \Vette 3 replies conclusively, that 
ii. 29. &c. are the woi'ds of Jehovah, containing a promise in relation 

1 Comp. Eichhorn's Einleit. p. 76. et seqq. 

2 Einleit. vol. iv. pp. 1743. and 1762. 3 Einleit. pp. 474, 475. 



1034 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

to the future, while in iii. 1. &c. the exiles speak of the present' 
that there repentance is required, here it is certified; that iii. 8. isi 
reminiscence of Jer. xlii. 18. ; that even in ii. 15. 35. Israel alon? ; 
occurs, and there is no necessity for preserving throughout the same 
parallelism ; and that there are as many Hebraisms in the one as in 
the other, proportionately. Hence we believe that the section i. 1 
— iii. 8. should not be separated. It is one piece. 

In like manner, it is contended by Bertholdt, that iii. 9 — v. 9. 
proceeded from another person than the writer of i. 1 — ii. 35. ; or, 
as we should say, of i. 1 — iii. 8.; because the language is much purer 
and more flowing, the representation more independent of older 
writings, and the Alexandrian culture of the author apparent. x The 
reply of De Wette 2 to these particulars is insufficient; for the differ- 
ence of contents and representation can scarcely account for the dif- 
ference of diction. And though it be true that chapter v. is compiled 
out of Isaiah, yet this does not argue an analogous dependence ; for 
it is Jeremiah's book which is used in i. 1 — iii. 8. ; while Isaiah is 
used in the other section. Against the Alexandrian philosophy of the 
writer De Wette refers to what is said in Jesus Sirach xxiv., where 
wisdom is spoken of similarly to the mention of it in iii. 14. &c. 
This last is the weightiest particular against the Alexandrian origin 
of the section since icisdom is not spoken of after the fashion of the 
philosophy prevailing in the schools at Alexandria; but it is not 
conclusive, unless it could be shown that the prevalent type of that 
doctrine was fixed. It would seem, that the writer of this second 
section was acquainted with the literature of the Arabians (iii. 23.), 
and with the theogonies of the Greek philosophers (comp. fxvOoXojoi, 
iii. 23., tellers of legends), which could scarcely be expected of a 
Palestinian Jew. In like manner, the expression, house of God, in 
iii. 24., and the application of Saifxovia in iv. 7. to idols, are more 
appropriate to an Alexandrian than a Palestinian. Hence we are 
disposed to reject the unity of the book contended for by De Wette, 
and to assume that the two sections of which it is composed were 
originally independent and distinct. 

At the commencement of the book, Baruch the son of Nerias is 
said to have written it in Babylon. There can be little doubt that 
the Baruch who was Jeremiah s faithful friend is meant, and not 
another of the same name, as Jahn 3 intimates ; for the father's name, 
Neriah, is the same, and both wrote down the oracles of Jeremiah. 
Is it correct therefore to hold that this Baruch, as alleged at the 
commencement, wrote the work ? Roman Catholic theologians 
have usually affirmed that he was the author, from Bellarmine 
down to Scholz and Moulinie ; and one Protestant at least, the 
whimsical Whiston, agrees with them. But this view is untenable 
for the following reasons. 

1. The work contains historical inaccuracies. Jeremiah was alive 
in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem ; yet the epistle 

1 Einleit. vol. iv. p. 1763. 2 Einleit. p. 474. 

8 Einleit. vol. ii. pp. 859, 860. 



On the Book of Baruch. 1035 

is dated at Babylon in this same year. It is most unlikely that 
Baruch left Jeremiah, since the two friends had remained together in 
prosperity and adversity. One account makes Baruch never leave 
Egypt ; another represents him as leaving it after the death of Jere- 
miah. Should the latter be the true one, it is hardly possible that he 
could have left Egypt after Jeremiah had died in the fifth year sub- 
sequently to the destruction of Jerusalem (which, however, is a 
mere hypothesis), have gone to Babylon, and written the book there 
in the same year. 

According to ch. i. 3. Jechoniah was present in the great assembly 
before which the epistle was read ; whereas we learn from 2 Kings 
xxv. 27. that he was kept a prisoner as long as Nebuchadnezzar 
lived. The fact, too, of all the Jewish exiles meeting together by 
the river Sud or Euphrates to hear the epistle read, seems fabulous. 

Again, Joakim is evidently supposed to be high priest at Jeru- 
salem, (i. 7.) But none of that name occurs in the list of high 
priests; and in the fifth year after the destruction of Jerusalem 
Jehozadak filled the office. (1 Chron. vi. 15.) 

There is also a mistake in i. 2. If the verse be referred to the 
carrying away of Jehoiachin, the city was not then burnt ; and if it 
allude to the destruction of the city by Nebuchadnezzar, it is wrong 
to represent the temple and its worship as still existing, which is 
done in the eighth and folio wing verses. 

2. Reminiscences of later books in the canon of the Old Testament 
are found in this one, supposing it to have proceeded from Baruch 
himself. Comp. i. 15—17. with Dan. ix. 7. &c, Neh. ix. 32. ; ii. 1, 2. 
with Dan. ix. 12. ; ii. 7. with Dan. ix. 13. ; ii. 9. with Dan. ix. 14. ; 
ii. 11. with Dan. ix. 5. 15., Neh. ix. 10.; ii. 19. with Dan. ix. 18. 

3. The historical situation presupposed is not in harmony with the 
language, especially in the second section. The exile is the time 
when the particulars narrated are supposed to have taken place; yet 
we find such expressions as, " thou art waxen old in a strange 
country " (iii. 10.) ; and the deliverance confidently expected is said 
to be soon (iv. 22. &c). In this connection we may also refer to 
i. 2. more particularly than before. The date of the book is given 
" in the fifth year, and in the seventh day of the month, what time 
as the Chaldeans took Jerusalem, and burnt it with fire." This 
language is indefinite. Eichhorn 1 and others fix the date of the 
book or the epistle, according to the statement emoted, in the fifth 
year of the captivity of Jehoiachin ; and suppose that the sojourn of 
Baruch in Babylon relates to a journey thither which he took with 
his brother Seraiah to bring the vessels of the temple back to Jeru- 
salem. (Jer. Ii. 9.) But Jerusalem was not then burnt; and it is 
difficult to see how the vessels which Zedekiah caused to be made 
after the deportation of Jehoiachin, got to Babylon. Bertholdt 2 and 
others suppose the language to refer to the fifth year after the 
destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar ; and this is certainly 

1 Einleit. p. 378. etseqq. 2 Einleit. vol. iv. p. 1758. et seqq. 



1036 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

more likely to have been intended ; but if so, the temple and altar 
are still supposed to be standing, (i. 10. 14.) De Wette 1 , comparing 
2 Kings xxv. 8., thinks that srsi should be \xr\v\ (i. 2.) ; but there is 
no authority for this. He also remarks that sv tw Kaipw should not 
be rendered after the time. It certainly means, however, at the time, 
which amounts to the same. In whatever way the date be under- 
stood, the historical situation assumed is not maintained. 

For the reasons just assigned, as well as others that might be given, 
we hold that the work is not authentic. It was not written by 
Baruch ; nor did it originate so early as his time. 

In regard to the original language of the book, great diversity of 
opinion prevails. Huet, Calmet, Bendtsen, Dereser, Griineberg, 
Movers, Hitzig, and De Wette, think that it was originally written 
in Hebrew ; whereas Grotius, Eichhorn, Bertholdt, Havernick, 
decide in favour of Greek. The arguments adduced on both sides 
are not weighty, else there would not be so much diversity of 
sentiment. 

The most important circumstance in favour of a Hebrew original 
is, that in the fourteenth verse of the first chapter we find it stated 
that the work was intended to be publicly read in the temple. For 
this purpose it must have been composed in Hebrew. Looking at 
the two sections apart, viz. i. 1 — iii. 8. and iii. 9 — v. 9., the first 
appears to be a translation, especially as the LXX. of Jeremiah's 
book was employed by the translator. (Comp. Baruch i. 9. with 
Jer. xxiv. 1.) Hitzig 2 even thinks that the translator of both was 
the same. Besides, the Hebraisms are of a kind which show a Greek 
translation. The genius of the Greek language is so much in the 
background, and the characteristics of Hellenistic Greek so few, that 
a version best explains the phenomenon. As Fritzsche aptly re- 
marks, it reads like another part of the LXX. 3 The following 
peculiarities are adduced as indicating a Hebrew original : ical irspl 
ajjiaprlasf (i. 10.) : ov . . . i/cst, ov . . . hiv avrco, ws 7) r^ispa avrr] ; airo- 
cttoXtj (ii. 25.), /36/jL/37]cns (ii. 29.). And some passages can only be 
explained by going to the Hebrew, as ii. 18. 

The language of the second section differs very perceptibly from 
that of the first. It is purer and more flowing. The Hebraisms are 
fewer ; and there is greater appearance of originality. Hence it is 
likely to have been written at first in Greek. 

Great stress is laid by Havernick 4 on the fact that if the work be 
an Alexandrian production, it must have been composed in Greek ; 
but that does not necessarily follow. The first section was probably 
written in Palestine, and therefore in Hebrew ; the second seems 
to be an Alexandrian production, and was therefore composed in 
Greek. 

Cappellus 5 thought that it was intended as a supplement to the 
51st chapter of Jeremiah. Havernick, again, connected it with 

1 Einleitung, p. 473. - Die Psalmen, hist, und krit. Comm. u. s. w. vol. ii. p. 119. 

3 Exeget. Handbuch, i. p. 172. 

4 De libro Baruchi apocrypho commentatio critica, p. 3. 
6 Commentarii et notse critica; in V. T. p. 564. 



On the Book of Baruch. 1037 

the 45th chapter of Jeremiah, as an appendix. Both hypotheses 
are groundless. 

The object of the first section was to show the people that they 
should humble themselves before God and pray for deliverance ; 
whereas that of the second was to encourage and comfort them in 
their distressed condition. Hence we are led to think of the Mac- 
cabean period, both as that in which the two sections were written, 
and also in which the first was translated, and then both put together. 
The writer of the second section, who was an Alexandrian Jew, 
having found the first section, which was a Palestinian Hebrew pro- 
duction, translated it and placed it before his own work. 1 

Hitzig was the first who tried to show that the translator of Jere- 
miah and of Baruch was one and the same person. The resemblances 
between the Septuagint version of Jeremiah and the production 
before us are indeed apparent in whatever way they are explained. 
But though Hitzig plausibly refers to such places as ii. 25., i. 9., com- 
pared with Jer. xxxii. 36., xxiv. 1. ; and Fritzsche, who follows him, 
asserts that the agreement extends not merely to one or two places 
but to the entire manner of both ; words and constructions occurring 
in Baruch, which are almost peculiar to the translator of Jeremiah ; 
we cannot assent to the conclusion. It is better to explain the 
similarities by the fact that the Septuagint version was used by the 
translator and writer, as Bertholdt and Havernick think. Less pro- 
bable is Movers's view, that the translator employed the Alexandrian 
recension of the Hebrew text. 

The Jews never admitted the book as canonical. So Jerome and 
Epiphanius state. Among the early Christian writers it was fre- 
quently quoted after the time of Irenasus. Both Greek and Latin 
fathers refer to it. As it was placed in the LXX. before or after 
the Lamentations, and was regarded in the light of an Appendix to 
Jeremiah ; it was commonly treated in the same manner as Jeremiah, 
equal canonical authority being assigned to it. Hence the words 
of Baruch were often quoted as the words of Jeremiah the prophet. 
Irenams, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian so cite them. Cle- 
ment quotes it in one place as the divine Scripture (rj 6sia <ypacj>i]). 
Cyprian refers to it thus : the Holy Spirit teaches by Jeremiah. From 
a catena published by Ghislerius 2 , on Jeremiah, Lamentations, and 
Baruch, we infer that old writers frequently commented on the book, 
as Theodoret did. Cyril of Jerusalem speaks of the book as canoni- 
cal. In the catalogue of the canonical books given in the fifty-ninth 
canon of the council of Laodicea, it is expressly named. Its canoni- 
city is now commonly held by Roman Catholics, since it was asserted 
by the council of Trent. Protestants put it among the Apocrypha. 

The twenty-five MSS. used by Holmes and Parsons in their 
edition are divided into two classes by Fritzsche, according to the 
nature of the text presented. 

The principal versions are the two Latin, the Syriac, and the Arabic. 
The old Latin, which is contained in the Vulgate, is literal. All its 

1 See Fritzsche, in Exeget. Handbuch, i. p. 173. : Lugdvmi, 1623, three Yolnm^?. 



1038 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

deviations from the Greek were collected by Cappellus. 1 The second 
old Latin version was first printed at Rome by Jos. Maria Caro 
(1688), and afterwards reprinted by Sabatier. It is a revision of the 
first, in which the Greek was used ; and presents a freer rendering of 
the source from which it was made. The Syriac is literal on the 
whole. According to Fritzsche 2 a later mixed text lies at the basis 
of these three translations. The Arabic version is very literal. 
There is also a Syriac Hexaplar version of Baruch in the well-known 
codex belonging to the Ambrosian Library at Milan. 

In the Paris and London Polyglotts is printed in Syriac and Latin 
a first ej)istle of Baruch the scribe, addressed to the nine tribes and 
half beyond the Euphrates. The book of Baruch furnished the oc- 
casion of its being written. It never formed a part of the LXX., 
and seems to have been composed by a Christian ; though it must 
be confessed that the Christian element does not much appear. 
Fritzsche conjectures 3 that the writer was a Syrian monk. It is 
difficult to decide whether it is a translation or not. More probably 
it is an original. 



CHAP. IX. 

THE EPISTLE OF JEREMY. 



An epistle of Jeremiah often stands as the sixth chapter of Baruch. 
According to the inscription it was sent by Jeremiah, at the command 
of God, to the Jews, who were to be led captives into Babylon on 
account of their sins. There they were to remain seven generations, 
and to see silver, golden, and wooden gods borne upon the shoulders, 
whose worship they should carefully avoid. After this the writer 
describes, in a declamatory style, the folly and absurdity of idolatry. 
(8 — 72.) The conclusion is abrupt, (ver. 73.) 

At first this epistle had no connection with Baruch and the Lamen- 
tations. All the relation it has to Jeremiah is, that it has been put 
together out of Jer. x. 1 — 16. and xxix. 4 — 23., the contents 
being copied from the one, and the form from the other. Its separate 
inscription, contents, difference of style, and the early historical notices 
respecting it favour the original independence of the letter, showing 
that its combination with Baruch was merely accidental. Fewer MSS. 
have it than Baruch, and it is put in them sometimes at the end of 
Baruch as the sixth chapter ; sometimes after the Lamentations. 
Theodoret and Hilary of Poitiers pass over the epistle. 

There can be no question that the letter was not written by 
Jeremiah ; and, therefore, modern Catholic theologians do well to 
abandon the example of their predecessors who maintained its authen- 
ticity. Even Scholz agrees with Jerome who calls it ■^rsvSs7rlypa(pos ; 
though Huet, Du Pin, Calmet, and Alber asserted its Jeremiah- 

1 Commentarii et notse cviticae in V. T. p. 564. 

2 Exeget. Handbuch, i. p. 175. 3 Ibid. p. 176. 



On the Prayer of Manasses. 1039 

authorship. In the latter case it must have been written in Hebrew; 
whereas internal evidence incontestably shows that the Greek is ori- 
ginal ; for it is pure Hellenistic Greek. Besides, the warning against 
idolatry addressed to the Jews bespeaks a foreigner living out of 
Palestine. The most probable place of its origin is Egypt. 1 

The oldest allusion to the existence of the epistle is commonly 
found in 2 Mace. ii. 2. But with Fritzsche we are unable to see 
the appropriateness of the supposed reference. Because a few words 
are similar in ii. 2. and the 4th verse of our epistle, it does not follow 
that the latter was the older ; or indeed that the Maccabean author 
had any respect to the epistle. There is no adaptation of the one 
place to the other. Still it is probable that the writer lived in the 
Maccabean period. 

What was said of the reception of Baruch by the early church 
applies to this epistle also. 

The old Latin version published by Sabatier is literal. The Syriac 
translation is freer, which may be accounted for, in part, by the fact 
that the Greek was often misunderstood. The Arabic is still more 
literal than the old Latin. No one has yet examined the Syriac 
Hexaplar codex in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, so as to be able 
to tell the connection between it and the Greek original. 



The Additions to Daniel and the History of Susanna 
have been already examined at page 936 and following. 



CHAP. X. 



THE PRAYER OF MANASSES. 



It is related in the thirty-third chapter of the second book of Chro- 
nicles that king Manasseh reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem, and 
re-established the worship of idols which his father had abolished. In 
consequence of his unfaithfulness to Jehovah the king of Assyria was 
prompted to come against him, and take him prisoner to Babylon. 
There he repented and turned to the Lord ; on which account he 
was restored to Jerusalem, and lived in accordance with the divine 
law. (2 Chron. xxxiii. 11, 12, 13.) In the eighteenth verse of the 
chapter in question it is remarked, that " the rest of the acts of 
Manasseh, and his prayer unto his God, and the words of the seers 
that spake to him in the name of the Lord God of Israel," are in the 
book of the Kings of Israel. Hence it would appear that a prayer of 
Manasseh in Hebrew existed in the days of the Chronicle-writer ; 
and it is possible that the composition in Greek called " the Prayer of 

1 See Fritzsche in Exeget. Handbuch, i. p. 206. 



1040 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

Manasses," or the Latin text of it in the Vulgate, may have been 
translated from the lost original. 

The production in question is beautifully simple and touching. 
The ideas are suitable in the circumstances, well -arranged, and 
natural. They are such as would arise in the mind of the king 
situated as he was ; being the offspring and evidence of genuine re- 
pentance. That they resemble what occurs in Old Testament books 
of much later origin than the time of Manasseh need not be turned 
to their disadvantage as though they were borrowed, since similarity 
of situation would call them forth without imitation. The exceptions 
made by Bertholdt * to the suitableness of some expressions put into 
the mouth of Manasseh in verses 10. and 13. are of no force, as 
Fritzsche 2 has shown. The writer was by no means deficient in 
skill or attention. 

The contents show that the writer was a Jew who was well 
acquainted with Greek. At what time he lived is uncertain. The 
earliest trace of the work is in the Apostolic Constitutions ii. 22., 
where it is mentioned and given at length. 3 Hence Fabricius 4 con- 
jectured that the Prayer of Manasses proceeded from the author of 
the Constitutions. But the one was a Jew, the other a Christian ; 
and the text, as given in the Constitutions, has been corrupted in 
various places, as compared with the Greek MSS. Bertholdt sup- 
posed 5 that the writer was a Greek-speaking Jew belonging to the 
second or third century of the Christian era, who lived, perhaps, in 
Egypt. But it is far more probable that he lived before Christ ; per- 
haps in the century prior to the Christian era. It is a production of 
the same class as other apocryphal writings which originated in the 
second or first century before the Saviour appeared on earth. 

There were many Jewish legends respecting the Prayer of Manas- 
seh. The Targum on Chronicles has embodied various singular cir- 
cumstances connected with it. Others are contained in the Apostolic 
Constitutions, in John Damascenus, in Anastasius, and Suiclas. 

The old Latin version did not proceed from Jerome, for the lan- 
guage is not his. Neither is it a part of the old Latin ( Versio Vetus) 
commonly so called, for it is later. It is a good version on the whole. 
There is also a Hebrew translation made from the Greek. 

Neither Roman Catholics nor Protestants look upon the prayer as 
canonical. 

Its position differs in different MSS. and books. The most usual 
place is after the Psalms, among the Hymns ; as in the Codex Alex- 
andrinus, in the Zurich MS. of the Psalms used by Fritzsche, and in 
the Ethiopic Psalter published by Ludolf. Sometimes it is after 
second Chronicles, as in the Vulgate in Sabatier's work. Many, as 
Luther and Reineccius, place it at the end of the Old Testament. In 
editions of the Vulgate it is commonly put at the close of the New 
Testament, succeeded by the third and fourth books of Esdras. 

1 Einleitung, vol. v. p. 2618. 2 In the Exeget. Handbuch, i. p. 157. 

3 Sec Ueltzen's edition, pp. 36, 37. 4 Libri Apocryphi Sirach, &c. p. 208. 

5 Einleit. v. p. 2622. 



On the First Book of Maccabees. 1041 

In the older editions of the LXX. as well as in many modern ones, 
it is omitted. Thus it is not in the editions of Tischendorf and the 
Bagsters. But it is in Apel's edition of the Apocryphal books, after 
the Song of the three Children. 



CHAR XL 

THE FIRST BOOK OF MACCABEES. 



The name Maccabees is commonly applied to the family and posterity 
of the Jewish priest Mattathias, who maintained a long and severe 
struggle against the kings of the Seleucidian race and finally effected 
au independent position for the Jewish people, till the year 37 B.C. 
The appellation was originally applied to Judas, the third son of 
Mattathias, as a surname. (1 Mace. ii. 3., iii. 1., v. 24. ; 2 Mace. x. 1.) 
The name is derived from n2j9D Heb., K3J5D Chald., a hammer ; ex- 
pressing the destructive prowess of Judas. 1 In Greek it is Ma/c/ca- 
ftato?. Another derivation, according to which it is written *3|B or 
*^l?to 3 supposes that the word is formed from the initial letters of 
7\\r\\ D'pxn ^pD3 '•p, who among the gods is like unto Jehovah ? which is 
said to have been the motto on the Jewish standards in the wars 
against the enemy. But this was a later usage, which did not ori- 
ginate till after the Jewish state had been destroyed ; and in that 
case, the word in Greek would not have been written with kk. 
For the latter reason, another derivation proposed by Delitzsch 2 
must be rejected. The name was gradually extended, till it was 
even applied to the Jews in Egypt persecuted by Ptolemy Philopator. 
(See the inscription of 3 Maccabees.) The appellation Asmoncean or 
Hasmoncean is commoner in Jewish literature, being derived from 
'Acra/icovaios, the grandfather of Mattathias. 

The first book of Maccabees contains a history of the Jews from 
the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes till the death of the Jewish priest 
Simon, i. e. from 175 till 135 B.C. It may be divided into four 
parts, agreeably to the prominence of the four high priests and princes 
who ruled over the people and led their army, Mattathias, Judas 
Maccabeus, Jonathan, and Simon ; viz. 1. From the commence- 
ment of Antiochus Epiphanes's reign till the death of Mattathias, 
chapters i. ii. 2. The history of the presidency of Judas Maccabeus, 
iii. — ix. 22. 3. The government and high priesthood of Jonathan, 
ch. ix. 23 — xii. 53. 4. History of the high priest Simon, ch. xiiL 
— xvi. 

The work is written in a comparatively easy and flowing Greek 
style; and it has many pure Grecisms. In point of language, 
indeed, it is superior to many books belonging to the Septuagint. 

1 Comp. the name Charles Martel. 2 Geschichte der jiidischen Poesie, p. 28. 

VOL. II. 3 X 



1042 Introduction to the Apocrypha.. 

Yet the language is Hebraising, and the influence of the LXX. upon 
it perceptible. (Comp. ix. 25., xiv. 9.) It is a translation, not an 
original ; for many Hebraisms are literal imitations of the Hebrew ; 
and many obscurities disappear on the supposition of mistakes made 
by the translator, (i. 28., ii. 8. 34., iii. 3., iv. 19. 24. &C.) 1 Besides, 
Origen 2 expressly speaks in favour of a Hebrew original ; the in- 
scription he uses, Xap/3r)d %ap{3ave s\, referring particularly to the 
first book ; and ra ~MaKtcaf3aiKd having been gradually extended to 
the remaining books, which were closely connected with the first. 
In like manner Jerome saw the Hebrew original. Thus there can 
be little doubt that the Greek was taken from a Shemitic original. 
Hengstenberg, however, asserts 3 that the "Chaldee" book of the 
Maccabees published by Bartolocci, is that referred to by Origen and 
Jerome. But this is incorrect, for it is not in Chaldee, but Hebrew: 
it consists of no more than 2\ pages small folio ; it has a different 
title from that given by Hengstenberg ; it relates Antiochus's perse- 
cution of the Jews in a very different way from the first book of 
Maccabees ; and the principal hero in it is not Judas, but John*. 
Hence it cannot be that the work is " a bad imitation and disfigure- 
ment of 1 Maccabees," as Hengstenberg calls it. 4 Kennicott mentions 
two Bodleian MSS. 5 ; and Wolf speaks of another containing ^history 
of the Maccabees written in Chaldee. From the Chaldee, which 
Kennicott supposes to have been the original, the history was trans- 
lated into Hebrew ; which version is inserted in several MSS. of the 
Hebrew Bible, and has been printed by Bartolocci. 6 Cotton states 
that " in Archbishop Marsh's library at Dublin is a small Hebrew 
roll on parchment, without points, containing this history of Antiochus 
and of ' John, the son of Mattathias ; ' of which the beginning (and 
probably the whole) agrees with that which has been published by 
Bartoloccius." 7 In consequence of Hengstenberg's mistake in saying 
that Bartolocci published the Chaldee, and Kennicott's statement that 
he published a Hebrew version of the Chaldee, a writer in Kitto's 
Cyclopaedia asserts that Bartolocci published two documents, one in 
Chaldee, the other in Hebrew ! 8 

Whether the original was Hebrew or Aramaean can scarcely be 
discovered now. The former is on the whole more probable, since 
the author wrote after the model of the Old Testament historical 
books ; and the Greek text can be best explained on the supposition 
of such an original. The title of it given by Origen may be equi- 
valent to ?8 \!3 ^ HXW, History of the princes of the sons of God, i. e. 
of Israel, which presupposes that "IB*, in Origen, was a mistake for 
*"*?. Others, as Bochart, Buddeus, Ewald, &c. give fo ^1 TB> BttTHfc 
the sceptre of the prince of the sons of God, i. e. of Simon, who is 
called prince. This makes the principal part of the book to be 

1 See Grimm in the Exeget. Handbuch in den Apokryphen, iii. p. xx. 

2 Ap. Euseb. yi. 25. 3 Beitriige, vol. i. p. 290. et seqq. 

4 Ibid. p. 293. 5 Dissertation the Second, pp. 534, 535. 

6 Bibliotheca Rabbinica, vol. i. p. 883. et seqq. 

7 The five books of Maccabees in English, Introduction, p. xxiii. 

8 Article Maccabees. 



On the First Book of Maccabees. 1043 

chapters xiii. — xvi., and the rest a mere introduction ; which is not 
likely. 

Who the Greek translator was cannot be discovered at the present 
day. Huet l identified him with Theodotion ; but Josephus, who 
lived long before Theodotion, made use of the present Greek text, 
so that this hypothesis is impossible. 

The original writer must have been a Palestinian Jew, as is 
inferred from the language, the accurate acquaintance with the 
localities of Palestine, and his close sympathy with the heroes whose 
deeds are narrated. Cornelius a Lapide, Huet, &c, conjectured that 
the high priest John Hyrcanus was the author ; to which is opposed 
the expressions used in xvi. 23. Prideaux again, thought that it was 
either composed by John Hyrcanus the son of Simon, or by some 
others employed by him. 2 Scholz 3 supposed that the author was 
perhaps the Judas spoken of in 2 Mace. ii. 14., who "gathered 
together all those things that were lost by reason of the war we had ;" 
words which do not refer to his writing a book. 

The time when the author lived must be derived mainly from xvi. 
23. &c. Yet the language leaves it doubtful whether the work was 
composed during the government of John Hyrcanus, though a con- 
siderable time after its commencement ; or after his death. Bertheau, 
Hengstenberg, Welte, and Scholz, adopt the former opinion ; while 
Eichhorn, Bertholdt, De Wette, Ewald, and Grimm, advocate the 
latter. The chief argument employed by such as take the first view 
is the improbability of the writer having given only the terminus a 
quo of the annals of John Hyrcanus's priesthood, without the terminus 
ad quern, in case the annals had been completed till the death of the 
high priest ; whereas if he were still living the terminus a quo alone is 
natural. But the writer's allusion to the annals was made for the pur- 
pose of indicating that the annals were continued at the very point 
where the history of the book breaks off; and the annals are spoken 
of as a public and well-known document. The expression " chroni- 
cles of his priesthood, from the time he was made high priest after 
his father," may as well be taken to include the entire high priest- 
hood ; and therefore the terminus ad quern was unnecessary. Those 
annals would scarcely have become current till they had been com- 
pleted with John Hyrcanus's death. Hence we regard it as probable 
that the work was written after that event ; how long after cannot 
easily be determined. Grimm 4 has called attention to the circum- 
stances, that the Messianic expectation is entirely in the background, 
so that the time did not excite the need of such hope, and was 
therefore a fortunate one, such as the first years of Jannasus Alex- 
ander; and that the ideas entertained by the author respecting the 
Romans were a pleasing illusion, (viii. 1. &c.) Indeed, the way in 
which the Romans are spoken of shows that the Jews had not felt 

1 Demonstratio evangelica, p. 312. 

9 Connection of the History of the Old and New Testament, part ii. book iii. vol. ii. 
p. 186. ed. 1718. 

3 Einleit. vol. ii. pp. 631, 632. 4 Exeget. Handbuch, iii. p. xxv. 

3x2 



1044 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

their power and oppression ; but had only heard of their fame. Hence 
the terminus ad quern of the origin cannot be after 64 B.C., in which 
year Pompey plundered Jerusalem ; nor can the terminus a quo be 
prior to John Hyrcanus's death, i. e. 105 B.C. Perhaps about 80 B.C. 
is nearly the date. 

The character and tone of the book are both simple and natural. 
It is distinguished by credibility, accuracy, and an easy historical 
style. The period described is one of the most important in the 
affairs of the covenant-people. They were subjected to a most severe 
ordeal on behalf of their faith. The trial was protracted, threat- 
ening, to all outward appearance, their very existence as a race. But 
God did not utterly forsake them. By his aid they maintained an 
heroic struggle against their persecutors, and achieved their inde- 
pendence. The history is told in an artless manner ; and appears in 
all essential points trustworthy. There are no highly wrought de- 
scriptions and decorations. The work is pervaded by a deep moral 
earnestness, and a living interest on behalf of the theocracy. Yet 
there is a perceptible difference between it and similar historical ones 
of the Old Testament ; especially those of Samuel and Kings. It 
wants the theocratic and religious pragmatism of the latter. Events 
are not presented in a supernatural point of view. The Deity is not 
described as working out His purpose, and directly interfering with 
the natural course of events. It is not said that the heroes and 
people were animated by the Spirit of God ; nor is Jehovah repre- 
sented as awakening in their hearts an unshaken courage and zeal in 
the sacred contest for their religious faith. The narrative is un- 
pervaded by that child-like religious spirit which is richly poured 
over the nobler productions of the old Israelitish history. The breath 
of divine poesy warming the contents with an invigorating spirituality, 
is not there. Even in places where the writer gives expression to 
his feelings in lyric effusions, as i. 25—28. 38 — 40., ii. 7 — 13., iii. 
3 — 9. 45. ; and Avhere he makes his heroes in their speeches and 
prayers express firm trust in the protection of God who had of old 
done great deeds in Israel (ii. 20. &c, iii. 18. &c. 60., iv. 8. &c, xii. 
9. 15., xvi. 3. &c.) ; he indulges no reflections of his own upon the 
religious aspect of events. The history is entirely objective. It 
bears no impress of the religious mind of the author, which appears 
to have limited itself to an abstract faith in Providence ; or, if it felt 
that God manifested Himself among the covenant-people by the 
deeds He enabled them to do, and the sufferings he supported them 
in enduring, carefully abstained from giving utterance to ideas corre- 
sponding to such feelings. Hence it is natural to expect nothing of 
the miraculous in the history. And we meet with no miracle ac- 
cordingly. The only approach to one is at xi. 72., where it is 
uncertain whether the writer wished it to be understood that Jonathan 
put the enemy to flight by a remarkable and direct interference of 
God on his behalf ; or whether he did not forget his customary method 
for the moment. 

In consequence of the absence of subjective religiousness from the 
history, it has been compared with the post-exile books of Ezra and 



On the First Book of Maccabees. 1045 

Nehemiah, which do not set occurrences in a supernatural light after 
the old theocratic pragmatism. But the comparison even here is in 
favour of the two canonical works, as will be seen by referring to 
such passages as Ezra viii. 31., JSTeh. ii. 8. 12. 20., iv. 9., vii. 5. Thus, 
though there is an approach in those books to the character impressed 
on the present history, they are not so cold, bare, unspiritually 
conceived, and composed. They are less objective. 1 

The historical value and credibility of the book have always been 
recognised, raising it far above the second book of Maccabees. Yet 
there are minor defects which cannot escape notice. The extreme 
brevity of the statements here and there is unsatisfactory, as in ix. 
54 — 73., where the history of seven years is too succinctly given, 
rendering it somewhat obscure. There are also some exaggerations, 
as iv. 24., v. 44., vi. 47. &c. In foreign history the author makes 
various mistakes, as in i. 6., where he makes Alexander divide his 
kingdom on his death-bed ; a fact contradicted by Curtius, and wholly 
impx-obable; though Roman Catholic writers, like Welte 2 , vainly 
endeavour to vindicate its truthfulness. So, too, in viii. 7., where it 
is related that the Romans took Antiochus l alive, &c, all classical 
writers contradict the statement. Hence it must be rejected, though 
Catholic authors try to defend it even after Gr. Wernsdorf's 3 un- 
answerable proof of error. The writer also makes the Spartans to be 
descended from Abraham equally with the Jews, and therefore both 
belong to the same race, which is a mistake, (xii. 21.) Other minor 
errors might be mentioned. These, however, detract little from the 
general truthfulness of the narrative ; for the statements usually agree 
with those of Greek and Roman writers respecting the Egyptian and 
Syrian kings. In chronology, the era of the Seleucidso is followed, 
which begins March 311 B.C. when Seleucus conquered Babylon. 
Contemporary Seleucidian coins corroborate the succession of events 
given in the work. The exactness of his chronological details makes 
it highly probable that the writer used written sources. This is 
intimated in ix. 22., where, with most interpreters, we understand 
the words " they are not written " in the sources he employed. He 
also incorporated official documents into his history, as is manifest 
from viii. 22. &c, x. 18. &c. 25—45., xi. 30—37., xii. 5—23., xiii. 
36—40., xiv. 20—23., xiv. 27. &c, xv. 2—9., xvi. 23, 24. Some 
are expressly mentioned as copies, and may therefore be regarded as 
authentic and genuine ; while others are doubtless free reproductions, 
and partly perversions, the originals not having been before him. 
The agreement of the different parts of the book throughout in 
character, tone, and style, is an evidence of the freedom with which 
-he treated the sources. 4 In addition to official documents, he em- 
ployed oral tradition, for he did not live too late to receive oral 
communications. Whether he himself witnessed in person any of 
the occurrences described is extremely doubtful. 

1 See Grimm in the Exeget. Handbuch, iii. p. xvii. et seqq. 

2 In Herbst's Einleitung, Heft. iv. pp. 23, 24. 

3 Commentatio historico-critica de fide historica librorum Maccabaicorum, 1747. 

4 See Grimm, Exeget. Handbuch, iii. p. xx. et seqq. 

3x3 



1046 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

The old Latin version of the work was made from the Greek 
before the time of Jerome, and is literal on the whole, though differ- 
ing in various particulars from our present original. Sabatier printed 
by the side of it another form of the text as far as the end of the 
thirteenth chapter, taken from a MS. in the Library of St. Germain 
at Paris. It is simply a revision of the older text by the aid of the 
Greek. Angelo Mai l has also printed an old Latin translation of 
ii. 49 — 61., which differs considerably from the usual text. 

The old Syriac version in the Paris and London Polyglotts is 
also literal, and was taken from the Greek, not the Hebrew, as Tren- 
delenburg proved. 2 

The Codex Vaticanus wants the three books of Maccabees, and, 
therefore the text in the Roman edition of the LXX. was taken from 
other MSS. 

The earliest trace of the book is found in Josephus, who incor- 
porated its contents into his Antiquities. But he has often departed 
from the words of the text in various ways, and from different causes, 
as Grimm has pointed out. 3 It is not put by him into the Canon. 
Neither Clement of Alexandria nor Eusebius regarded it as a part 
of the Jewish Canon. Origen also excludes it from the same list. 
I ( Ap. Euseb. vi. 25.) But elsewhere he speaks of the books of Mac- 
\ cabees as Scripture and authoritative. (De Princip. ii. I.) 4 Jerome 
says that the church reads them, but does not admit them among the 
canonical Scriptures. But he cites them elsewhere as holy Scripture. 
Augustine says that not the Jews, but the church, looks upon them 
as canonical, on account of the sufferings of certain martyrs. The 
councils at Hippo and Carthage first formally received them into 
the Canon (a.d. 393 and 397); and, in modern times, the Council 
of Trent settled their canonical authority for the Catholic Church. 
Luther took a very favourable view of our present work, affirming 
that it is " not unworthy to be reckoned among the other holy books, 
because it is very necessary and useful for the understanding of the 
prophet Daniel in the eleventh chapter." This judgment is repeated 
by Grimm, who says that " it certainly deserves a place among the 
hagiographa of the Canon, perhaps not entirely with the same right 
as the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, but decidedly with a better 
claim than the book of Esther." 5 Against this opinion it may be 
said, as indeed it has been, that the writer himself confessed the age 
in which he lived to have been one forsaken by the gracious assist- 
ance of the Holy Spirit (iv. 46., ix. 27., xiv. 41.); but perhaps it 
is a sufficient reply, that in the passages referred to the peculiar ma- 
nifestation of the Holy Spirit as a prophetic Spirit is spoken of, not 
his operation in general. It is difficult to see in what respect the 
work is inferior as a whole to the book of Esther. It is certainly 
inferior in tone, spirit, and contents to Ezra and Nehemiah. 

1 Spicilegium Romanttm, vol. ix. p. 60. et seqq. 

2 In Eichhorn's Repertorium, vol. xv, pp. 58 — 153. 

3 Exeget. Handbuch, iii. p. xxvii. et seqq. 

4 P. 165. ed. Redepenning, whose note see. 6 Exeget. Handbuch, iii. p. xxii. 



On the Second Book of Maccabees. 1047 



CHAP. XII. 

THE SECOND BOOK OP MACCABEES. 

This book consists of two letters addressed by the Palestinian Jews 
to their brethren in Egypt, relating to the ceremony of the temple's 
dedication, (i. — ii. 18.) Then follows an abridgment of a historical 
work concerning the Maccabees, written by one Jason of Cyrene, 
with an introduction (ii. 19 — 32.) and conclusion (xv. 37 — 39.). The 
extract in question begins with the attempted robbery of the temple 
by Heliodorus under Seleucus Philopator, and terminates with Nica- 
nor's death (iii. 1 — xv. 36.), embracing a period of fourteen years, 
viz. from 176 to 161 B.C. 

The two letters are not genuine, because they contain chronolo- 
gical errors. In i. 7. the Jews in Jerusalem and Judea are said to 
have groaned under oppression under king Demetrius. The mistake 
is that the melancholy events which took place under Antiochus 
Epiphanes were transferred to this later period. In i. 1 0. the second 
epistle is dated the 188th year of the era of the Seleucidae (123 B.C.), 
and is written in the name of the council and Judas x ; whereas Judas 
Maccabeus, the person evidently intended, died thirty-six years be- 
fore, in the 152nd year of the same era. The spuriousness of the 
letters is continued by the absurd legends they contain respecting the 
holy fire, the tabernacle, the ark, and the altar of incense ; which 
betray a later time than that of the alleged date, or the time of Juda; 
Maccabeus, (i. 19 — ii. 8.) The writer of the remainder of the book, 
or, in other words, the abridger of Jason's work, cannot have forged 
the epistles in question, because the second gives an account of the 
death of Antiochus Epiphanes (i. 13 — 16.), contradictory to that in 
the ninth chapter. The chronology in like manner does not agree 
with that of the epistles. If, with Wernsdorf, Paulus, Bertheau, 
and others, the date (188th year) at the beginning of the 10th verse 
belong to the preceding verse, then the epistle written in the 169th 
year (i. 7.) is probably identical with that contained in the 10th and 
following verses, and the date is false; for the dedication of the 
temple referred to took place earlier, viz. under Judas Maccabeus, in 
the year 148. In like manner it is improbable that the epitomiser of 
Jason's work prefixed the two epistles to his own production, having 
found them already written ; for he could scarcely have failed to see 
the historical and chronological contradictions to his own work which 
they contained. The connection between ii. 19. and the letters is 
also loose, notwithstanding the particle 8s. 2 Hence we suppose that 
the letters were prefixed to the book by some other and later person 
than the epitomiser of Jason. 

It has been supposed by Grotius and Bertholdt that the last four 

1 Different opinions respecting Judas may be seen in Basnage's History of the Jews, 
book v. eh. i. 

2 See Bertholdt, Einleit. iii. pp. 1061, 1062. 

3x4 



1048 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

chapters are not part of the abridgment of Jason's work ; the writer 
having there followed another source. But we are unable to see the 
correctness of this view, though various circumstances are adduced in 
support of it. They have been refuted by Bertheau 1 and Welte. 2 
Hence we must believe that the original work of Jason narrated the 
history of the Jews under the four Syrian kings, Seleucus Nicanor, 
Antiochus Epiphanes, Antiochus Eupator, and Demetrius Soter. It 
runs parallel with the first book of Maccabees, from iv. 7., but 
terminates earlier ; since it carries the history down to no more than 
161 B.C. 

As to the character of the book it is inferior to the first in many 
particulars. In credibility, simplicity, correctness, and naturalness 
it suffers greatly in comparison. Here the subjectivity of the writer 
prominently appears. All is coloured with the hues of his own reli- 
giousness. He does not abstain from reflections of his own as the 
writer of the first book does, or leave the deeds described to make their 
own impression on the mind of the reader. On the contrary, he 
dresses them out in a manner which is merely the outward reflection 
of his own uncritical and superstitious pietism. Accordingly the 
work abounds with monstrous miracles, such as that which happened 
to Heliodorus the messenger of Seleucus, when he went to take away 
the treasures of the temple : — " There appeared an horse with a ter- 
rible rider upon him, and adorned with a very fair covering, and he 
ran fiercely, and smote at Heliodorus with his fore-feet; and it 
seemed that he that sat upon the horse had complete harness of gold. 
Moreover two other young men appeared before him, notable in 
strength, excellent in beauty, and comely in apparel, who stood by 
him on either side, and scourged him continually, and gave him many 
sore stripes. And Heliodorus fell suddenly unto the ground, and 
was compassed with great darkness, but they that were with him 
took him up and put him into a litter," &c. (iii. 25—27.). Of the 
same kind is the wonder related w r hen Antiochus undertook a second 
expedition against Egypt: — "Through all the city, for the space 
almost of forty days, there were seen horsemen running in the air, in 
cloth of gold, and armed with lances, like a band of soldiers, and 
troops of horsemen in array, encountering and running one against 
another, with shaking of shields and multitude of pikes, and drawing 
of swords, and casting of darts, and glittering of golden ornaments, 
and harness of all sorts." (v. 2, 3.) We also read, that a heavenly 
protector on horseback, " in white clothing, shaking his armour of 
gold," appeared as leader of the Jews against the Syrians (xi. 8. &c); 
and that the prophet Jeremiah appeared to Onias, and gave Judas a 
sword of gold. (xv. 12. &c. &c.) Yet Roman Catholic writers, like 
Welte, defend these monstrosities, on the ground that miracles are 
possibilities ; and that none can show the things described not to have 
happened. We do not, however, deny the existence of miracles. 
But the particular wonders here described, taken in connection with 
the circumstances in which they were wrought and the objects they 

1 De Secundo Maccabeorum libro, p. 9. 

2 In Herbst's Eiuleit. Heft iv. p. 37. et seqq. 



On the Second Book of Maccabees. 1049 

were meant to serve, bear on their face the marks of impossibility. 
Jehovah does not thus interfere on behalf of his people. 

Besides, the book has many historical and chronological mistakes. 
Thus, in x. 3. &c, it is related that the offering of sacrifice to God 
in the temple was renewed after two years' interruption ; whereas, 
according to 1 Mace. iv. 52., the interruption continued three years. 
Both Josephus and Jerome agree with the latter. We need not 
refute again the refuted solutions of Catholics endeavouring to recon- 
cile the two dates. 

Another inaccuracy is found in xi. 1 — 12. compared with 1 Mace. iv. 
26 — 32. According to the first passage Lysias marched against the 
Jews soon after the victory of Judas over Timotheus, in the time of, 
Antiochus Eupator, after the re-dedication of the temple ; but ac- 
cording to the second, it took place in the time of Antiochus Epi- 
phanius, before the purification of the temple. Here some Protestants, 
as Ussher, Petavius, and Prideaux, with Catholic writers generally, 
assume two different expeditions. But that is very improbable, 
since it makes the writer of first Maccabees omit the second expedi- 
tion ; and the author of second Maccabees omit the first. Hence, 
we cannot but identify the two, as Wernsdorf does. 1 

There are also various parts of chapter iv. which do not agree with 
1 Mace. viii. (Comp. iv. 11. with viii. 17. &c.) 

Still farther, the writer of the second book generally dates events 
about a year later than the first book, for it would appear that the 
former begins the era of the Seleucidas with 312 B.C. Avhen, for the 
first time, Seleucus made a triumphant entry into Babylon ; whereas, 
according to the chronology of the first book, the same era begins 
with 311 B.C., when Seleucus conquered Babylon. The former is 
incorrect, and the mistake is continued throughout. 2 All the justi- 
fications of this which have been offered, both by Protestant and 
Romish critics are insufficient, as Bertheau 3 has proved. 

In like manner the book presents exaggerated and arbitrary em- 
bellishment in vi. 18. &c, for which we refer to Hasse 4 , and whose 
defence by Catholic writers is weak indeed 5 ; and in vii. 27. &c, 
which is of the same character. Highly wrought descriptions, ex- 
hibiting false decoration in part, are found in iii. 14. &c, v. 11. &c. ; 
and moralising disquisitions, which may be taken for what they are 
worth, in v. 17. &c, vi. 12. &c, ix. 8. &c. The embellishments 
and reflections belong to the epitomiser, because they harmonise 
with the tone and style of the prologue and epilogue, as Bertheau 6 
has observed. 

But who was Jason, and when did he live? He and his age 
are both unknown. It is tolerably clear that he did not make use 
of the first book of Maccabees, whatever other documents he had. 
Some of the mistakes observable in the abridgment may not indeed 

1 De fide hist, librorum Maccab. p. 99. et seqq. 

- See Wernsdorf de fide lib. Maccab. pp. 18—37. 3 De Secund. Mace, libro, p. 45. 

4 Das andere Buch der Makkabaer neu uebersetzt, u. s. w. p. 307. 

5 Comp. Welte's defence, in Herbst's Einleit. H. 4. p. 59. et seqq. 

6 De Secund. Mace, libro, p. 1 2. 



1050 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

have been in the original history, such as that in xi. 1. &c.« Jason 
must have lived after 160 B.C., since the history is brought down to 
that time. And it is likely that he lived considerably later, because 
he made so many mistakes ; a fact which may be occasionally 
owing to the bad sources he employed; but is much oftener due 
to oral tradition. The accounts of many occurrences had become 
disfigured and embellished by tradition. Hence arose numerous 
errors. 

With respect to the epitomiser of the five books of Jason* we know 
as little. He has been identified with Judas Maccabeus, Judas the 
Essene, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon, Philo of Alexandria, 
, and Josephus. All such conjectures are empty and improbable. He 
seems to have been an Egyptian Jew, educated in the rhetorical 
schools of Alexandria. The style is artificial, oratorical, affected. 
There is a striving after elegance and smart terms of expression, 
which betrays Alexandrian tastes. Ornateness and verbosity evince 
the Alexandrian manner of writing. With this conclusion agrees 
the fact that he makes a peculiar distinction between the temple in 
Egypt and that at Jerusalem, calling the latter the temple renowned 
all the world over, or honoured over all the world, (ii. 22., iii. 12.) 
Scholz and Welte argue, from various particulars, that he was a 
Palestinian Jew ; but this is less probable, being discountenanced by 
the fact that Jason was a Cyrenian, as well as by the Greek style of 
the epitomiser. Perhaps Jason wrote about 120 B.C.; his epitomiser 
shortly after, i. e. about 100. The two letters were prefixed still 
later ; it may be by him who appended the work to the LXX. They 
were written after the death of John Hyrcanus. 

There can be little doubt that the work was originally composed 
in Greek. It bears no marks of a translation from Hebrew or 
Chaldee, and has a pure Hellenistic diction. The current language 
of Cyrene was Greek ; and therefore Jason must have composed his 
history in that dialect. The epitomiser employed the same. As to 
the two epistles prefixed, they were first written in Hebrew or Ara- 
masan. If they were really addressed to the Egyptian Jews by those 
of Jerusalem they must have been composed in Greek, else they 
would have been unintelligible. But as they are not genuine, there 
is no necessity for advocating their Greek original on this ground. 
The Hebraisms in them show that they were translated, as Bertholdt 
saw. 1 Whether they were translated into Greek by him who con- 
nected them with the remainder of the work or not, we are unable 
to tell. 

There are two ancient versions of the book, one in Latin, the 
other in Syriac, both printed in the London Polyglott. The Latin 
is ante-Hieronymian. It was made from the Greek, but is not very 
literal, as it departs from the original in many places, often through 
misapprehension of the sense. Sabatier printed another Latin text, 
which is a mere revision of the usual one, and is much more correct. 

The Syriac version, though taken from the Greek, departs from 

1 Einleit. vol. iii. p. 1072. 



On the Third Book of Maccabees. 1051 

it in many instances. The translator frequently misunderstood the 
original. 

The Arabic second book of Maccabees, in the Paris Polyglott, is 
not a translation of the Greek text, though the contents run parallel 
with the Greek in the first sixteen chapters. It is the version of a 
Hebrew work. The succeeding chapters (xvii. — lix.) bring down 
the history from the place where the Greek work stops till the times 
of Herod the Great. 

Neither Philo nor Josephus alludes to the work ; for the book con- 
cerning the Maccabees attributed to the latter belongs to another 
author. Whether the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews alludes 
to the tortures of Eleazar and the seven brothers (comp. Heb. xi. 35. 
with 2 Mace. vi. 19._ — vii.) may perhaps admit of doubt. The first 
clear trace of the existence of the work is in Clement of Alexandria. 
Origen has introduced a large piece of the history into his commen- 
tary on Exodus ; and he frequently uses it elsewhere. Into the canon 
of the Jews it was never admitted. The reception it met with was 
the same as that of the first book, with which it was joined ; and we 
refer to the testimonies already quoted of both. 



CHAP. XIII. 

THE THIRD BOOK OF MACCABEES. 



This production is improperly entitled the third book of the Mac- 
cabees, since it does not touch on the time of the Maccabean heroes, 
but describes what is of earlier date. When the Egyptian king 
Ptolemy Philopator was returning from an expedition against Antio- 
chus the Great by way of Jerusalem, he was tempted out of curiosity 
to penetrate into the holy of holies in the temple. At the moment 
of entering, however, he fell down speechless, and soon gave up his 
attempt. After his arrival in Egypt he resolved to avenge himself 
upon the Jews there, and commanded that they should all forfeit 
their privileges granted by Ptolemy Lagi, unless they consented to 
be initiated into the orgies of Bacchus. As but a few complied, he 
ordered that all the refractory, with their wives and children, should 
be chained in the great circus of Alexandria, to be trampled to 
death by drunken elephants. But at the prayer of Eleazar the priest, 
two angels appeared in terrible form between the Jews and the ele- 
phants, and were visible only to the Jews. The affrighted elephants 
went backwards and crushed the soldiers. The king caiased the Jews 
to be released from their chains, appointed a festival, and made an 
edict that none of his subjects should injure a Jew on account of his 
religion. He also permitted the Jews, after they had returned to 
their homes, to massacre the apostates ; which they did. 

The history is nothing else than a most absurd Jewish fable. As 
far as genuine history is known, there was nothing in the conduct of 



1052 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

Ptolemy Philopator towards the Jews which could lead them to load 
his memory with so disgraceful a fiction. The origin of the story 
can only be guessed. Eichhorn supposes that an interchange of per- 
sons and facts lies at the basis of it. 1 In Ruffinus's Latin translation 
of Josephus's second book against Apion, is found an appendix re- 
lating that the Egyptian prince Ptolemy Physcon wished to take the 
sceptre out of the hands of his mother Cleopatra, and that he even- 
tually succeeded. At first he met with strong opposition from the 
generalissimo of the Egyptian army, Onias, a Jew. Accordingly he 
resolved to take vengeance on all the Jews in Alexandria, whom he 
caused to be chained in the theatre, with their wives and children, for 
the purpose of being trampled to death by drunken elephants. But 
the elephants fell upon the attendants of the king himself ; and a ter- 
rible human form threateningly forbade the king to persecute the 
Jews. He was also moved to this by the beloved of his heart ; and 
the Alexandrian Jews from this time forward kept a yearly festival 
in memory of the remarkable event. 

It may be thought by some that a change of person lies in this 
narrative, and that it arose out of the history contained in the third 
book of Maccabees ; or was taken perhaps from the book itself, with 
industrious transformation. But it is on the whole improbable that 
Ruffinus, or the person from whom he got it either orally or in 
writing, drew it from the narrative embodied in our book. Rather is 
the story told by Ruffinus the original, out of which, by transforma- 
tion of names, the mixing up of other matters, and peculiar embel- 
lishments, the history contained in the Maccabean book arose. 2 

The object of the author was to set forth the origin of a yearly 
festival which the Jews celebrated in Egypt, (vi. 36.) 

The contents favour the supposition that the author was an Egyp- 
tian Jew. This is confirmed by the artificial, bombastic style, and 
the moral reflections interspersed, which characterise all the historical 
productions of the Jews in Egypt. It was written at first in Greek ; 
for there are no traces of a Hebrew or A ramaean original in the lan- 
guage. The person and age of the writer are unlike unknown. It 
is clear that it was written after the second book of Maccabees, be- 
cause it occupies an unchronological place next to the latter ; so that 
it was not known to the Alexandrians till a later period. It probably 
appeared immediately before the commencement of the Christian 
era, certainly not under Ptolemy Philopator that is about 200 years 
before the birth of our Saviour, as Allix supposed. 3 The first notice 
of it is in the Apostolic Canons, which are assigned to the third cen- 
tury ; and in which it is looked upon as a sacred book. 4 Eusebius 
excludes it and all the Maccabean books from the canon ; but Theo- 
doret calls it a holy writing. Pseudo-Athanasius puts the three 
books of Maccabees together, remarking of them that they are spoken 
against. Philostorgius rejects the third book because of its fables. 

1 Einleitung in die apokryphischen Schriftert, £ s. w. p. 284. et seqq. 

2 See Bertholdt's Einleit. vol. iii. p. 1086. et seq. 

3 The Judgment of the ancient Jewish Church against the Unitarians, p. 67. 

4 Canon 76. in Cotelerii Patres Apostolici, vol. i. p. 448. ed. 1698. 



On the Fourth Booh of Maccabees. 1053 

Nicephorus characterises it as a writing which is spoken against. It 
never formed a part of the Vulgate ; and was, therefore, not received 
into the Canon of the Catholic Church ; though it is in that of the 
Greek Church. No Latin version of it has been discovered in any 
MS. of the Vulgate. 

In the London Polyglott there is a Syriac version of it, which is 
free in its character, and abounding in mistakes ; but we do not know 
in what estimation the Syrian church held the book. The writer of 
the article Maccabees, in the Cyclopaedia of Sacred Literature, in- 
correctly states that the third book of Maccabees is in the Vatican 
MS.; whereas the truth is, that none of the three books is in it. All 
are in the Codex Alexandrinus. The first English version was made 
by Walter Lynne (1550), which was inserted, with corrections, in 
Becke's Bible (1551). A second translation was published by Whis- 
ton in his " Authentic Documents" (2 vols. 1719 and 1727). A 
third version was made by Crutwell, and added to his edition of the 
authorised version (1785). Cotton's version is a revision of Whiston's, 
and is decidedly the best (1832). Luther did not translate it. Cab- 
inet rendered it into French, and inserted it in the third volume of 
his " Literal Commentary on the Bible." l 



CHAP. XIV. 

THE FOURTH BOOK OF MACCABEES. 



The Greek writers sometimes speak of a fourth book of Maccabees. 
Pseudo-Athanasius, Syncellus, Philastrius, and others, mention it; 
but no Latin writer. As no account is given of its contents, we are 
in ignorance regarding it. When Sixtus Senensis found a Greek 
MS. in the library of Santes Pagninus containing the histoi-y of the 
high-priesthood of John Hyrcanus, he thought he had found the 
work. But this MS. was destroyed by fire, when the entire library 
of Pagninus was burned. Le Jay found an Arabic history of the 
Maccabees and of the Jews generally, from Seleucus, son of Antio- 
chus the Great, till the birth of Christ, which he inserted in the 
Paris Polyglott. From this work it was taken and put into the 
London Polyglott. Father La Haye, thinking it was the fourth 
book of Maccabees, reprinted the Latin version of the Paris Poly- 
glott, in the Biblia Maxima ; but with the omission of the first 
nineteen chapters. Calmet, however, has shown that this was not 
the genuine fourth book of Maccabees. 2 

The Codex Alexandrinus of the Greek Bible, and after it some 
editions of the LXX. (Aid. 1518 ; Basil, 1545, 1550, 1582 ; Argent. 
1526; Frankfort, 1597; Venet. 1687; Grabe, 1719; Breit. Tigur. 

1 See Cotton on the fire books of Maccabees, p. xx. 

2 Dissertations qui peuvent servir de prologomenes de l'ecriture sainte, vol. ii. p. 425. 



1054 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

1731) contain the real fourth book of Maccabees (VLaiacafiaLcov 
\6yos 8' in Cod. Alex.). It is not in the Vatican MS., as is often 
asserted ; nor in the Vatican edition. This work was once attributed 
to Josephus ; and was therefore printed among his writings. It has 
different titles in MSS. as, ' , Icoar]7rov irspl crcocppovos XoyLcr/xov, irspl 
avTo/cpdropos Xojmt/jlov, k.t.X., on the supremacy of treason by Josephus ; 
sis NLatacafialovs Xoyos, discourse concerning the Maccabees, Sfc. It 
contains a philosophical and ascetic treatise of the dominion of right 
reason over the passions, as illustrated by the history of the martyr- 
dom of Eleazar, the seven brothers, and their mother ; and is simply 
a turgid amplification of 2 Mace. vi. vii. Philostratus, Eusebius, 
and Jerome, ascribe it to Josephus ; though it is certainly not his. 
Nazianzen praises the book, but omits the name of Josephus. There 
is no reason for attributing it, with Grotius, to some other Josephus 
than the Jewish historian. 

The author seems to have imbibed some principles of the Stoics, 
who exalted human reason and virtue so as to imagine anything 
could be done by their assistance alone. Thus he appears to have 
adopted the equality of sins. He also insinuates that we derive 
our souls from our parents. He contradicts the text of the second 
book of Maccabees. (Comp. 2 Mace. ii. 3. 7, 8. with the first chapter 
of this book.) He makes many blunders ; as that Antiochus Epi- 
phanes was son of Seleucus ; whereas he was his younger brother. 
The Sabbatical year is confounded with the year of Jubilee. He 
falsely states that Antiochus favoured the Jews after the martyr- 
dom of Eleazar and the seven brethren. 1 

The style of the book is inflated, and the figures are abundant. 
Indeed, the whole manner and diction are unworthy of Josephus. 
The Jewish historian could not have been guilty of so much igno- 
rance. It is the work of some one who wished to obtain a favour- 
able reception for it by using an illustrious name. 

It is difficult to tell the time and place when it was written. We 
cannot date it earlier than the second century of the Christian era ; 
and the writer who composed it in Greek probably belonged to 
Palestine ; for had he been an Alexandrian, his philosophy would 
have been different. 

Gregory of Nazianzum, Ambrose, Jerome, and Chrysostom, have 
drawn their descriptions of the Maccabean martyrs from this fourth 
book. Jerome enters into details of their sufferings which are not in 
the second book of Maccabees. The first English translation of it 
was given by Cotton ; for L'Estrange, in his version of Josephus, 
presented nothing but a loose paraphrase. 

1 See Calmet's Dissertations, vol. ii. p. 425. 



On the Fifth Book of Maccabees. 1055 



CHAP. XY. 

THE FIFTH BOOK OF MACCABEES. 

The fifth book of Maccabees, as it is called by Cotton, is that which 
has been referred to in the last chapter as the fourth book of Le Jay 
and La Haye, viz. the history of Jewish affairs from Heliodorus's 
attempt on the treasury at Jerusalem, till Herod's slaughter of his 
wife Mariamne, her mother, and his two sons. It consists of fifty- 
nine chapters. 

Neither the manner nor the matter of the work can be called 
good, as far as we can judge from the Arabic text now existing, and 
that is all we have ; for Cotton is mistaken in saying that the work is 
extant in the Syriac language also. 

It is evident that Josephus did not use it ; since there are things 
in which it differs from his statements, as Calmet has pointed out. 
Eusebius and Jerome, after citing the first book of Maccabees which 
ends with the death of Simon, continue the history of his son 
Hyrcanus, without making mention of this work. It makes Hyr- 
canus have the title of king from the Roman senate ; and the number 
of senators at Home 320 (ch. xxii.). It describes him as having but 
three sons (ch. xxvi.) ; whereas Josephus gives him five. The 
Roman and Egyptian soldiers are usually called Macedonians. Mount 
Gerizim is commonly termed Jezebel; Samaria, Sebaste ; and Sichem, 
Neapolis or Naplous. It is stated that the Idumaeans having been 
conquered by Hyrcanus professed the Jewish religion till the de- 
struction of the second house (ch. xxi.) ; showing that the translation, 
or rather the text on which the Arabic is founded, was not com- 
posed till after the destruction of the temple by the Romans. 1 With 
this agrees a remark in the twenty-fifth chapter, where, after the 
three principal sects among the Jews are spoken of, the Hasdanim 
being the last, it is added, ' ( the author of the book did not make 
mention of their rule, nor do we know it except in so far as it is dis- 
covered by their name ; for they applied themselves to such practices 
as come near to the more eminent virtues." In like manner " the 
author of the book" is spoken of in two other places (lv. 25., lix. 96.). 
The expression implies that the translator wrote long after the first 
author. 

The work was originally written in Hebrew ; or rather, the Greek 
text, whence the Arabic was taken, was compiled from Hebrew 
memoirs or annals. The turns and idioms of the Hebrew are pre- 
served even in the Arabic. Who the Greek compiler was, it is 
impossible to discover. Supposing the Arabic to be a faithful re- 
production of his work, we cannot speak highly of his acquaintance 
with the history of the Jews or of the Romans. He has some 

1 See Calmet's Dissertations qui pcuvent servir, &c. vol. ii. p. 424. 



1056 Introduction to the Apocrypha. 

remarkable peculiarities of language ; such as, " the house of God," 
and " the holy house," for the temple ; " the land of the holy 
house," for Judea ; " the city of the holy house," for Jerusalem ; " the 
great and good God ; " " the men of the west." In speaking of the 
dead we meet with the exclamations, " to whom be peace ! " and " God 
be merciful to them!" Although none of these expressions forbids 
the ascription of the work to a Jew ; yet some of them point at least 
to a person living out of Palestine. He was one of the dispersion who 
probably belonged to Asia Minor, and lived either in the third or 
fourth century of the Christian era. The Arabic version must be 
dated after the seventh century ; and appears to be literally rendered 
from the Greek, as it has preserved the Hebraisms of the Greek 
compilation. 1 

The third, fourth, and fifth books are improperly called books of 
the Maccabees ; the third especially so, because it is anterior in point 
of date to the Maccabean period. If arranged in order of time, the 
third book would be the first ; the second would retain its present 
place ; and the first would be third. The fourth coincides in point 
of time with a part of the second; viz. ch. vi. vii. The fifth, after 
relating what had been already told in the second and third books, 
carries the history down to the time of Christ, and so supplies a 
chasm. 

In the preceding account of the apocryphal books, we have avoided 
those difficult points of discussion relating to the position they should 
occupy ; such as, the nature and character of the separating line 
between them and the canonical ; the respective authority and value 
of each class ; the reasons which may have led at first to the putting 
of the apocryphal apart from the canonical ; and the consideration of 
the question, whether the New Testament writers furnish quotations 
or reminiscences of the Apocrypha in the Gospels and Epistles. With 
such general topics it w 7 as not our province to interfere, since they 
belong to a discussion of the canon. And, indeed, we could scarcely 
have entered upon their examination without writing a volume. They 
are both perplexed and delicate. It is impossible for us to refer to 
any work or essay, Latin, German, English, French, or Dutch, 
which treats them with fulness or success. Professor Stuart made a 
good commencement in his work on the Old Testament Canon ; but 
that scarcely touches the apocryphal books, and is too apologetic 
throughout. Wordsworth's Lectures on the Canon are too popular 
and superficial to give much satisfaction. 2 They do not evince 



1 See Cotton on the five books of Maccabees, pp. xxxii. xxxiii. 

2 On the inspiration of Holy Scripture, or on the Canon of the Old and New Testament, 
and on the Apocrypha, 1851, second edition. Among other assertions which this writer 
makes is the following : " Neither the apostle (Paul), nor any of his brethren, nor their 
divine Master, ever quoted a single sentence from any one of the Apocryphal books of the 
Old Testament. "(p- 79.) Few would write in this unqualified style, after reading the trea- 
tises of Stier, and Nitzsch, who show that if there are not formal quotations, strictly so 
called, there are at least numerous allusions and reminiscences, evidencing the familiarity 
of the New Testament writers with the Apocrypha, and the influence of the latter upon 
their modes of thought and expression. It is even affirmed by Bleek, who has minutely 
investigated the subject, that the manner and extent of that influence completely out- 



Conclusion, 1057 

much acquaintance with the subject. A few years ago, the question 
began to be debated in Germany; giving rise to various treatises 
and essays on opposite sides. Some advocated a strict separation 
of the canonical and apocryphal books, maintaining that the latter 
should be excluded from our Bibles; while others vindicated a 
place for the apocryphal, in the Bible, after the canonical. On the 
Purist side, as it has been called, which is wholly adverse to the apo- 
cryphal books, appeared various treatises by theologians of the Ke- 
formed Church; by Schroeder 1 and Ebrard. 2 To these may be added 

weighs the force of express quotations. When Eomanists assert that some of the Fathers 
quote these books as Scripture, and call them canonical,- Wordsworth affirms that the terms 
Scripture and canonical are often used by some of the Fathers in a very wide and general 
sense. This has the appearance of a subterfuge ; and besides, Eusebius appeals to the 
book of Wisdom under the appellation, Qeia, ypa<pT) and deTov X6ywv, " divine Scripture," and 
" divine oracle." Apply to the epithet divine here, what Wordsworth elsewhere says, 
" There cannot be degrees in inspiration. There cannot be more or less in what is divine." 
(p. 89.) In like manner, Clement of Alexandria applies ?? dtia ypa,<p-f], divine Scripture, 
both to Sirach and Baruch ; Athanasius quotes Sirach with the words, &s ttov ?j kpd <pi)ffi 
ypcupri, as the sacred Scripture somewhere says. Epiphanius quotes the author of the book 
of Wisdom as the most blessed of the prophets (Solomon); Hilary calls the same, a prophet ; 
and even Jerome applies to Sirach, Scriptura sancta. Rash and unfounded statements in 
Wordsworth's book are numerous, such as, " It is indubitable that Ezra revised the copies 
then extant of the Jewish Scriptures, and collected them in one volume, and completed 
the Canon of the Old Testament." (p. 38.) Even Prideaux might have prevented him 
from falling into this mistake. " The Apocryphal books in his [Augustine's] judgment, 
are not inspired." (p. 89.) But he speaks of two of them as of the canonical, in his 
treatise on Christian doctrine (cap. 8.) : " Eli duo libri qui Sapientia Salomonis, et alius, 
qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur, quoniam in auctoritatem recipi meruerunt, inter propheticos 
numerandi sunt." This agrees with Cyprian who, referring to Sirach iii. states, the 
Holy Spirit speaks in the divine Scriptures and says, i. e. " Loquitur in Scripturis divinis 
Spiritus sanctus et dicit," &c. (De Opere et Eleemos.) In another place, to prove that 
Augustine sometimes uses the word canonical in a wide sense, Wordsworth adduces the 
passage where that Father says, " Of the Scriptures called canonical, those are to be pre- 
ferred which are received by all churches, and that those are to be placed next which are 
acknowledged by the major and graver part of Christendom," and argues, " Can any reason- 
able man speak of preference of one canonical Scripture, properly so called, to another ? 
There cannot be degrees in inspiration. There cannot be more or less in what is divine. It is 
therefore clear that the word canonical is sometimes used by Augustine in a laxer sense, so 
as not only to designate writings strictly speaking inspired, but also to embrace those which 
were held in reverence and read by the Church." (pp. 89, 90.) This reasoning is utterly 
fallacious and unsound. Augustine is referring in the passage quoted to the different 
reception which the books of the New Testament received from the early churches. Some 
were universally admitted. Others were received by the majority. Others were rejected 
by the majority ; such as the second Epistle of Peter. Augustine is not alluding to apo- 
cryphal books at all. The preference mentioned is the degree of reception which some 
books met with from the churches, compared with others. Even if it did relate to the 
internal goodness of one canonical work above another, we hold that every "reasonable 
man" may apply it most legitimately to canonical books. For, there are degrees in 
inspiration ; besides, in what is divine and human at the same time, like the sacred 
writings, there is, and must be, more or less of the divine element; more or less of the 
human element. Every reflecting reader of the Bible will allow that the sacred books 
may be classified according to their internal value ; for the men that wrote them were 
inspired in different degrees. Wordsworth and many others fall into inextricable confu- 
sion by not seeing that inspiration cannot be properly predicated of writings. By a 
i-ommon figure, inspired is applied to writing in 2 Tim. iii. 16.; but correcdy and properly, 
inspiration refers to the mind of man. The Holy Spirit breathes into the mind; which 
mind, so breathed into, gives expression to certain ideas. Yet He does not breathe into all 
minds tlie very same things, in the same manner. He influences them in a mode accordant 
with, and in some degree conservative of, previous idiosyncrasies, tastes, and habits. 

1 Wie reimen sich Stroh und Weizen zusammen ? spricht der Herr. Elberfeld (no date). 

2 Zeugnisse gegen den Apokryphen, reprinted from the Eeformed Kirchenzeitung, 
Basel, 1851. 

VOL. II, 3 Y 



1058 Introduction to the Apocrypha, 

the prize essays of Keerl l and Kluge 2 , with the subsequent treatise of 
the former, against Stier and Hengstenberg. 3 On the other side, were 
published the dissertations of Stier 4 , Nitzsch 5 , and Bleek. 6 The Ro- 
manist view has been ably advocated by Herbst 7 , Scholz 8 , and Malou. 9 
Thus the question awaits a thorough and satisfactory discussion from 
the pen of a scholar who is at once master of the entire literature and 
the needful logic, — of one who has a deep reverence for the Bible, 
and an equal regard for truth wherever it appears. It would be out 
of place for us to indicate our opinions on the present occasion farther 
than to say, that we are dissatisfied with all English books we have 
seen on the subject; and that the Church of England has observed a 
wise moderation respecting the Apocrypha, which is conducive to the 
right view. We agree with her and the Lutheran Church more 
nearly than with the Reformed. But that is saying little to the 
point. The true path of investigation is opened up by the very able 
essays of Bleek, Nitzsch, and Stier. The old work of bishop Cosin 10 
is perhaps the best in English respecting the relative position of the 
canonical and apocryphal books ; for we presume, that none who 
knows Alexander's book on the Canon 11 will indorse the assertion of 
its editor in this country, " In Dr. Alexander's work the evidence of 
a great question is very successfully condensed ; . . . and that it will, 
by its happy and judicious brevity, have a powerful and resistless im- 
pression on the mind." 

1 Die Apokryphen des A. T. 1852 ; and, Die Apokryphenfrage mit Bcriicksichtigung 
dcr darauf beziigl. Schriften Dr. Stier's und Dr. Hengstenberg's aufs neue beleuchtet, 
1855. 

2 Published at Frankfort on the Maine, in 1852. 

3 Die Apokryphenfrage mit Beriicksichtigung der darauf beziigl. Schriften Dr. Stier's 
und Dr. Hengstenberg's aufs neue beleuchtet, 1855. 

4 Andeutungen fur glaubiges Schriftverstandniss, II. Sammlung, p. 486. et seqq. in 
the Evangelische Kirchenzeitung for 1828, nos. 59, 60. ; Die Apokryphen. Vertheidigung 
ihres althergebrachten Anschlusses an dieBibel, 1853; and, LetztesWort iiber die Apokry- 
phen in Bezug auf Lie. Keerl's neueste Gegenschrift, 1855. 

5 Ueber die Apokryphen des A. T. und das sogenannte christliche im Buche der 
Weisheit, in the Zeitschrift fuer christliche Wissenschaft, u. s. w. for 1850. 

6 Ueber die Stellung der Apokryphen des alten Tcstamentes, reprinted from the 
Studien und Kritikeri for 1853. 

7 Einleitung in das alte Testament, Heft. i. 

s Einleitung in die heiligen Schriften des alten und neuen Testaments, zweyter und 
dritter Theil. 

9 La Lecture de la salute Bible en langue vulgaire, 2 vols. Louvain, 1846. 

10 A Scholastical History of the Canon of the Holy Scripture. London, 1657. 4to. 

11 The Canon of the Old and New Testament Scriptures ascertained, &c. New edition, 
with introductory remarks by John Morison, D.D. London, 1833. 



1059 



ADDENDA. 



Page 187. 



There is a good section on the references of the New Testament to the 
Old, with a copious list of quotations and allusions, in Wilke's Die 
Hermeneutik, u. s. w. vol. i. p. 165. et seqq., where at the same time 
passages that slightly depart from the Septuagint are marked with an *, 
and those that differ much with two **. Some useful hints towards a 
classification of them are also given. We may also refer on this subject 
to the list of quotations in Bialloblotzky's treatise, De Legis Mosaicae 
abrogatione, p. 161. et seqq., which appears to be very full and good, 
though no classification is given. 

Page 197. 

The same views as those advocated by Chalmers have been held by 
many German writers. We refer to an explanation and defence of the 
position that interpretation is a grammatical operation to Wilke's Die 
Hermeneutik des Neuen Testaments, where it is explained and defended. 1 
To what a dry skeleton biblical interpretation would be reduced by it, 
is shown by Winer's exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians, a work 
proceeding from the first grammarian, as far as the New Testament 
language is concerned, in Germany. Witness also Gesenius's exposition 
of Isaiah. It is impossible to make it a purely grammatical operation. 
No interpreter, be his tastes and habits what they may, can do so. He 
must consciously or unconsciously be much more than a grammatical 
man. This might be proved from the very work of Wilke. 

Page 423. 
On the interpretation of parables we may refer to Wilke's Hermeneutik, 
vol. ii. p. 302. et seqq., where the observations are brief and excellent. 

Pages 554, 555. 

Since these remarks were written on Luke ii. 1, 2, 3., our attention has 
been directed to a learned essay of A. W. Zumpt, on the Roman governors 
of Syria, in his Commentationum Epigraphicarum ad Antiquitates Romanas 
pertinentium Volumen alterum, Berolini 1854, entitled, De Syria Roma- 
norum Provincia ab Cassare Augusto ad T. Vespasianum, part of which 
bears on the passage in the third Gospel. For a summary of the rea- 
soning, as well as chief results arrived at by the author, we are indebted 
to Mr. Bowman of Manchester, who has written an excellent paper on the 
subject in the Christian Reformer for October 1855. 

Zumpt has shown by conclusive evidence that P. Sulpicius Quirinius 
became governor of Syria, probably about the end of B.C. 4, remaining 
perhaps three years ; that he reduced the Homonadenses of Cilicia, and 
in the last year of his government was " rector " to C. Cassar then on his 
mission to the East, till the end of b. c. 1, when he returned to Rome. 

1 Vol. i. p. 54. 
3 Y 2 



1060 Addenda. 

He was succeeded by M. Lollius in the province, and in the rectorship of 
Caesar. After Lollius and his successors, C. Marcius Censorinus and 
L, Volusius Saturninus, Quirinius came again, a. d. 6, to make Judea 
a Roman province, and take a census of its inhabitants. It is not known 
when he quitted the province ; but as his successor Creticus Silanus was 
in the province in A. D. 11, he probably remained the full term of five 
years. 

The value of Zumpt's dissertation, for our present purpose, lies in its 
showing, from sources entirely independent of Luke, that Cyrenius was 
governor before the birth of Christ. Though he was governor of Syria 
a.d. 6, and made a census then, we now know that he had been already 
governor of the same province, i. e. in b. c. 4, as Luke implies, or rather 
b. c. 3. 

Contemporary history is still silent respecting the first census during 
the first governorship, while there is a positive discrepancy between the 
accounts of Luke and Josephus, as to who was governor in the year com- 
monly assigned as that of Christ's birth ; but the mere silence of history 
on various points is not valid evidence against the statement of a credible 
and honest historian ; nor can Josephus's general accuracy be compared 
with Luke's. 

We are glad to find that Zumpt coincides with us in rejecting the con- 
struction which makes TrptnTr} equivalent to -Kportpov. " Though we were 
to concede," says he, " that this is not contrary to the idiom of the Greek 
language (which may, however, not unreasonably be questioned), I observe 
it to be a departure from the natural and obvious interpretation, and that 
those who maintain it would be glad to abandon it, if any other could be 
found. It is also a complete departure from the opinion of the earliest 
fathers of the Christian faith, who followed the authority of Luke, or 
similar testimony, but so that they considered that both the census made 
by Quirinius, and the birth of Christ, took place at the end of b. c. 3, or 
the beginning of B. c. 2. Eusebius says distinctly, i This, then, toas the 
forty -second year of the reign of Augustus, and the twenty-eighth from the 
reduction of Egypt and the death of Antony and Cleopatra with whom the 
dynasty of the Ptolemies in Egypt ceased, when our Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ teas born in Bethlehem of Judea, according to the prophecies 
concerning him, "em r??e tote Trpwrrje awoypcKpijg, itye^ovevovTOQ Kvpiviov 
tT]q 'Lvpiag" at the time of the census, which then first took place, Cyrenius 
being governor of Syria.' It is clear that ■ the reign of Augustus is 
reckoned from the year 43 b. c, when he was first made consul, from 
which the forty-second (counting in the Eoman method) falls in B.C. 3, 
which is also the twenty-eighth from the reduction of Egypt. There is 
therefore no doubt that Eusebius believed that both the census was made, 
and Christ was born, in the year 3 b. c. ; as likewise Irenasus, Tertullian, 
Clemens Alexandrinus." l 

Thus if Zumpt's conclusion be accepted, our interpretation is confirmed ; 
viz., this was the first census when Cyrenius was governor of Syria ; 
and there is no necessity for taking the verb iiye/xovevuj in any wider sense 
than that of proper governor. 

1 Quoted by Bowman in his paper, On the Eoman Governors of Syria at the time of 
the birth of Christ. 



INDEXES, 



I. Hebrew and Greek Words and Phrases explained. 
II. Passages op Scripture explained or illustrated. 
III. Subjects and Authors. 



3 y 3 



INDEX I. 

HEBREW AND GREEK WORDS AND PHRASES EXPLAINED. 



Page 

n^'lD and HIS* - - - - 823 

4> nna d?3ts - - - - 168 

'"6 pS - 914 

ni^n?n ^ 742 

niTt^!) Sg 743 

">3^ nOX 245 

niP« ------ 259 

n-£px 258 

nrfn*? n^s ----- 242 

p»»j? d^ i»V "ip? ■ " - 1S2 

njnj m 242 

3^3 - 25 7 

HKOKD3 24-1 

□3 ^3 167 

h| 257 

ntsrsn -* - - - - 170 

n'-fen 739 

nsspn 241 

rn-in; ijdo ns ^A - - - 25S 

rnpn-^3 n& .... 243 

jnj. 192 

men 242 

3X> 258 

l£ T 258 

pnvi* ~ 42 

fn» 2S9 

nn-in; 12 

3 



Page 

- 389 

- 520 

- 242 

- 243 

- 242 

- 1-4G 

- 17 

- 278 

- 741 

- 742 



ihv - - - - 

nn^"3 3ES* - 

y^35 - - - - 

nj/33 - 

nn-iD3 - 

rrn nj?3 - 

•<y\m nn? - 

jy^ .... 

n$;ipb - 

riissh - 

"flop 739 

F&BQ 742 

DJriDO ...... 740 

Khbp 12 

•JH.P Snpl? 599 

ffi&O 913, 914 

T#J - 244 

^ip - - - - -411,423 

J033 809, S10 

JOP3 . . . _ 

1*3. - - - - 

rifr - - - - 

D^D - - - - 

npino n?P - 
-oy and -ay. 



245 

114 
744 



n-ny - 



- 258 

- 615 

- 2, 3 

- 743 

- 743 



1064 Index I, — Hebrew and Greek Words and Phrases explained. 



t^p/rn qj?k rw by - - - 743 

15 hy - - - - - - 277 

£»P» ^pyby .... 736 

&^b> ^y 743 

fcniavy ----- 244 

nnpy - 243 

Ity - 243 

OT 257 

Diny ------ 244 

njrjV 265 

nov ------ 114 



n^i? &np 233 

Dnj? - 243 

1Sj7 257 

dn'-in"^ 235 

{faltf 244 

n"nn] ">'# 739 

D^a'^ - 646 

•mi) -inn 244 

-linn 233 

^n . - - - - - 256 

tpjp . . - - - - 243 



Page 
'AvareiAavTos rov rjAiov - - - 544 

'AvaKoyiav rrjs iricrTecos ~ - - 311 

'AirivavTi - - - - -265 

BaTToAoye'o* ----- 253 

reiWo; 389 

Aia<t>4pouTa ----- 243 
AMaioavvT) - 265 

Abs ipyaaiav ----- 263 
'E77if€ii/ - - - - - 531 

'Eeripio/j.dxvc^ ' 259 

'Ev oAi'7<jj - 214 

'Ei> r$ (pairi ----- 253 
'E-Kayy4\\onai - - - - 263 

'Eirwvaios .... 243, 253 
'EirL§aAA<bv %K\aiev - - - - 263 

EvAoyia _____ 265 

EiiTpaireAla - 253 



Page 

y E<pT)p.epia 262 

''Exe /ue iraprirrjixevov - 263 

0eoD oikoSo/xt) - - . - 226 

'IXacTTripiov - 265 
"iva and Sircos itArjpwe^ - 188-9, 196-7 

NiKav e'/c toD drjplov - - - - 260 

Tlapoii.ua _____ 423 

U'httiv irapaax^v iraffiv - - _ 263 

ITpoo-ei/x^ ----- 245 

STreiprjs- 'IraAiKrjs - 357 

^irepfxa - - - - - 192 

^TpaToAoyeco ----- 262 

'Sufj.a.TiK&s - 243 

Terayfiepoi - - - _ _ 553 

$a76?v t?> iratrxa - - - - 535 

XprifAarifa - - 357 

XpicrrJs 192 



INDEX II. 

PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE EXPLAINED OR ILLUSTRATED. 



Chap. 


Verse. 




2. 




8, 9, 10. 




10. 




20. 




27. 


ii. 


4. 




4—6. 




5. 




19. 




24. 


iii. 


15.. 




16. 


iv. 


1. 




10. 




23, 24. 


vi. 


3. 




5. 




6. 




19, 20. 


vii. 


1. 




12, 17. 




24. 


viii. 


3. 




11. 


X. 


9. 


xi. 


1. 




4. 




26, 32. 


xii. 


1. 




10—19 


xiv. 

XV. 


14. 




2. 




13. 




18. 


xvi. 


4—16. 


xviii. 


10. 




21. 


XX. 


- 




16. 


xxi. 


9—21. 



GENESIS. 

Page 

" Without form and Toid " - 244 

The use of the word " day " as compared with ii. 4. - 509 

" God saw that it was good " - - - - 88 

" Let the waters bring forth . . . fowl," &c. - - 510 

" So God created man " - - - - - 510 

Use of the word " day " as compared with i. 8, 9, 10. - 509 

The supposed contradiction of the passage to ch. i. - 595 

" There was not a man to till the ground " - - 510 
" Out of the ground the Lord God formed . . . every 

fowl" - - - - • - 510 

" They shall be one flesh " - - - - 87 

" Thy seed and her seed " - - - - - 461 

" Thy desire shall be " - - - - - 244 

" I have gotten a man from the Lord " - - - 242 

" The voice of thy brother's blood crieth " - - - 1 93 

Lamech's address to his wives - - 271, 332, 428, 563 

" My spirit shall not always strive with man" - 239, 563 

" God saw that the wickedness of man was great," &c. - 480 

" It repented the Lord " - - - - - 510 
Directions to Noah to take animals into the ark, compared 

with ch. vii. 2, 3. - - - - 510 

■ " Thy house "-----. 397 
" The rain " — " The flood was upon the earth," &c. - 510 
"The waters prevailed," &c. - - - - 510 
" The waters returned from off the earth," &c. - - 510 

• "Plucktoff" 243 

" A mighty hunter before the Lord " - - - 218 

■ " One language "- - - - - -396 

■ "A tower whose top may reach to heaven " - - 219 
Compared with xii. 4. Supposed contradiction in the 

statements respecting the age of Haran - - 510 

The call of Abraham - 549 

The taking away of Sarah by Pharaoh - 603 

" Trained servants " - - - - -215 

Account of the covenant which God made with Abraham, 

compared with ch. xviii. - 603 

• " The steward of my house "•---- 244 

■ " Four hundred years " .... 511,549 
The bounds of the Promised Land - - - 351,595 

■ Statements respecting Hagar compared with ch. xxi. 

9—21. - - - - - - 603 

■" According to the time of life " - - 146,235 

• " I will go down " - 404 

■ The taking away of Sarah at Gerar ... 603 

• " Behold he is to thee for a covering of the eyes " - 242, 562 

• Statements respecting Hagar and Ishmael, compared with 

xvi. 4 — 16. ---._. 603 

• Abraham's covenant with Abimelech, compared with 

Isaac's - - - - - - 604 



1066 Index II. — Passages of Scripture explained or illustrated. 



GENESIS. 



Chap. 


Verse. 


xxii. 


1. 


xxiv. 


2. 


XXV. 


27—34. 


xxvi. 


1—11. - 




26—33. 


xxvii. 


1—40. - 




41 — xxviii. 9. 


xxviii. 


22. 


xxix. 


- 


XXX, 


23, 24. - 




25—43. 


xxxii. 


3. 




22—32. 




24—30. 


XXXV. 


14, 15. 


xxxvi. 


9, 




6. 


xxxvii 


. 23—30. 


xxxvui. - 


xxxix 


20—23. 


xlvi. 


26, 27. 


xlvii. 


11. 




31. 


xlviii. 


8, 10. - 


xlix, 


10. 




21. 


I. 


25. 



Page 
549 
222 
595 



" God did tempt Abraham " 

" Eldest servant of his house " 
• Jacob sells his birthright - . 

■ Isaac denies his wife, not another version of Abraham's 
denial - - 

- Isaac naming the well, not a different tradition of the trans 

action attributed to Abraham, ch. xxi. 22 — 34. 

- Jacob procures the blessing by craft, not contradictory to 

xxv. 27. &c. - 
Jacob sent to Mesopotamia, the reasons of - 

- " This stone . . shall be God's house " - 

- Leah " left bearing," compared with xxx. 17. 

- Twofold etymology of the name Joseph - 

- The manner in which Jacob obtained his riches, as compared 

with his own statement in xxxi. 4 — 48. 

- The abode of Esau in Edom, as compared with xxxvi. 

6. &c. - - 

- The alteration of Jacob's name, compared with xxxv. 10. - 

- Jacob's wrestling with the angel - - 301, 336, 511 

- Compared with xxviii. 18, 19. Two-fold dedication of 

Bethel ...-.- 

- Compared with xxvi. 34. Esau's wives - 

- Esau's retirement to Edom, compared with xxxii. 3 

- Joseph sold to the Midianites and Ishmaelites 

- The chronology of, compared with preceding and following 

accounts ------ 

- Compared with xl. 4. " Keeper of the prison," &c. 

- " All the souls which came with Jacob into Egypt," &c. - 

- " The land of Rameses," compared with Ex. i. 11. 

- " Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head " 

- " Israel beheld," &c. " Israel's eyes were dim that he could 

not see " 

- " Shiloh " — " from between his feet "— " Sceptre " 244, 260, 398 

- " Goodly words " - - - - - - 245 

- " Ye shall carry up my bones from hence " - 87 



- 603 

604 

595-6 
596 
397 
511 
596 

596 

596 

597 



604 
597 
596 
597 

511 
598 
550 
512 
170 

512 



ii. 


18. 


iii. 


2, 4. - 


vi. 


3. 




20. 


vii. 


18—22. 


viii. 


9. (Heb. 5.) 


ix. 


6. 20. - 


xii. 


fl— 28, 43- 

\ 51— xiii. IS 




15. 




40. 


xiii. 


13. 




21, 22. - 


xiv. 


4. 




27. 


XV. 


16. 


xvi. 


- 


xvii. 


14. 


xviii. 


2—4. - 




17—26. 


XX. 


5. 




11. 



EXODUS. 

" Eeuel their father." Compare iii. 1. ... 598 

" The angel of the Lord appeared," &c. Moses sees God - 512 

" By my name Jehovah was I not known to them " - 512 

" She bare him Aaron and Moses " - - - 87 
"All the waters became blood" — "And the magicians 

did so" - - - - - - 513 

" Glory over me " - - - - - - 241 

" All the cattle of Egypt died," &c. - - - 513 

The Passover - 604 ; see also 355 

" Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread," &c. - - 278 
" Four hundred and thirty years "- - - -511 
Compared with Lev. xxvii. 27. The redemption of the 



firstlings of unclean beasts 

- The cloudy pillar that went before Israel - 

- " All his host " — 

- " The sea returned to its strength " 

- " The greatness of thy arm " 

- The giving of manna and quails - 

- " Write this for a memorial in a book," &c. 

- " Moses's wife, after he had sent her back " 

- Jethro's advice to Moses - 

- " Visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children," &c. 

- Compared with Deut. v. 1 9. Different reasons for observing 

the Sabbath ------ 

■r Law respecting the manumission of slaves - 



- 599 

- 598 

- 397 

- 256 
257, 403 

- 604 

- 613 

- 599 

- 513 
513 



513 

599 



Index II. — Passages of Scripture explained or illustrated. 1067 



Chap. 

xxi. 

xxiii, 


Verse. 
21. 

14—16. 
19. 


XXV. 


15. 


XXX. 


6. 


xxxiii. 


11. 

20. 



EXODUS. 

Page 

" He is his money " - 396 

The number of festivals ----- 599 

" Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk " - 354 

" The staves shall be in the rings of the ark " - - 601 

The altar of incense placed " over against the vail " - 550 

" The Lord spake unto Moses face to face," &c. - - 550 

" Thou canst not see my face," &c. - ■> - 5 1 1 



iv. 


29. 


xiii. 


55. 


xvii. 


1—7 


xviii. 


18. 


xxiii. 


- 




18. 


xxvii. 


27. 




34. 



LEVITICUS. 

- " The Lord called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of 

the Tabernacle of the Congregation " - - - 513 

- He shall " slay the sin-offering in the place," &c. - - 103 

- " If the plague have not changed its colour " - - 398 

- All beasts to be slain at the door of the tabernacle - - 514 

- " Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister," &c. - - 242 

- The number of the festivals of the Jews - - 599,600 

- Offerings with the bread of the first fruits - 600 

- The redemption of the firstlings of unclean beasts - - 599 

- " Commandments which the Lord commanded Moses in 

Mount Sinai" - - - - -513 



f 11, 22, 28,34, "1 
'" I 39.- -] 



xvi. 
xviii. 
xix. 
xx. 

xxi. 



xxn. 
xxiv. 
xxv. 
xxvi. 



3. 23. 30. 35 

47. 



11—28. 
29. 

1, 2, 3. - 

16. 

25, 45. 
33. 

16. 

2, &C. - 
1, &c. - 



14. 16. 27. 
5. 

22—35. 
17. 

17—19. 



NUMBERS. 

The number of the Levites 

of the 



xxvin. 27, &c. 

xxxi. 8, 16. 

xxxii. 2. 

xxxiii. 18—37, 

xxxiv. 1 — 12. 

xxxv. 4, 5. 



"IThe age and time 
J viii. 24. 

- " They shall put thereon the covering, . . 

the staves " 

- The cloudy pillar which conducted Israel 

- Name of Moses's father-in-law 

- The sending of the quails - 



- 514 

Levites' service. Compare 

514, 601 
and shall put in 

- 601 

- 598 

- 598 

- 604 



Compared with Deut. 
spies 



■22. 



The sending forth of the 

301, 515 



- The name Joshua given to Oshea the son of Nun - ~ 602 

- Supposed contradiction as to the abode of the Amalekites - 515 
• The forty years' wandering of the Israelites - - 5 1 5 

- The destruction of Korah, &c. ; apparent discrepancies - 605 

- The redemption of unclean animals - - - 599 

- The red heifer - - - - - - 355 

- Compared with Ex. xvii. 1, &c. The murmuring of the 

Israelites ------ 604 

- Compared with xiv. 45- The smiting of the Israelites by the 

Amalekites - - - - - ' - 602 

- " The book of the wars of the Lord " - - - 620 

- Compared with 2 Pet. ii. 15. " Beor," and " Bosor " - 550 

- Balaam's ass speaks — a literal occurrence, or a vision ? 584-5 

- " I see him, but not now ; I behold him, but not near " - 826 

- " There shall come a star out of Jacob," &c 585 
» Compared with 1 Cor. x. 8. The number of the Israelites 

who died of the plague — discrepancy in the statements 

- Compared with xvi. and Ps. cvi. 17, 18. Discrepancy of 

statement respecting the destruction of Korah and his 
company ------ 

- Offerings with the bread of the firstfruits - - . - 

- Balaam's death — discrepancy compared with xxiv. 25. 

- " Moses wrote their goings out," &c. - 
Discrepancy as to the marchings of the Israelites, compared 

witb Deut. x. 6, 7. 

- Discrepancy as to the bounds of the Promised Land, com- 

pared with Gen. xviii. 15. - 

- Discrepancy in the statements of the length of the suburbs 

of the Levitical cities - - - - 514-15 



550 



51G 
600 
603 
613 

516 

595 



1068 Index II. — Passages of Scripture explained or illustrated. 



Chap. Verse. 



DEUTERONOMY. 



Page 





22. 




28. 


T. 


15. 


ix. 


1. 


X. 


6, 7. - 


xii, 


15, 20—22. 


XV. 


12—18. 


xviii. 


15, 18, 19. 


xxiii. 


18. 


xxvii. 


9. 


xxviii. 


58. 


XXX. 


12, &c. - 




20. 


xxxi. 


9—11. - 


xxxii. 


43. 


xxxiii. 


25. 



- " These be the words which Moses spake ... on this side 

Jordan," &c. - - - - - - 352 

- The appointment of Judges by Moses, compared with 

Ex. xviii. 17, &c. 513 

- Apparent contradiction respecting the sending of the spies 515 

- Cities " walled up to heaven " - - - - 219 

- Compared with Ex. xx. 11. Different reasons for observing 

the Sabbath - - - - - - 513 

- The possessor put for the thing possessed - 397 

- Discrepancy respecting the marchings of the Israelites - 516 
Apparent contradiction to Lev. xvii. 1 — 7. - - - 514 

- Compared with Ex. xx. 1, &c. Discrepancy as to the manu- 

mission of slaves » - - - -599 

- The prophet to be raised up unto Israel - 589 

- " Thou shalt not bring the hire of a whore, or the price of a 

dog," &c. ----- - 354 

- " Take heed and hearken, O Israel " - - - 242 

- " This glorious and fearful name " - - - - 398 

- " It is not in heaven," &c. Compare Eom. x. 6, &c. - 149 

- " He is thy life and the length of thy days " - - 396 

- " Moses wrote this law," &c. - - - - 614 

- " Eejoice, O ye nations," &c. - - - - 154 
-" As thy days, so shall thy strength be " - - - 214 





5. 
6. 


iv. 


19. 


v. 


1. 


X. 


15, 43. - 




23, 37. - 




36, 37. - 


xi. 


19. 


xii. 


7, &c. - 




10, 12, 16, 




21, 23. 


xiv. 


1. 


XV. 


11, 45—47. 


xvii. 
xix. 


r> ■ 


xviii.- 


—xix. 51. - 


xxi. 


35. 


xxiv. 


23. 




25, 26. - 




26. 




29, &c. 



JOSHUA. 

- Compare xiii. 3, &c. The bounds of the Promised Land - 638 
-" I will not fail thee," &c. - - - - 171 

- The conquest of Canaan - - - - - 636 

- The arrival of Israel in Canaan - - - - 515 

- " We passed over " - 640 

- Joshua's return to Gilgal — apparent contradiction - 517 

- The king of Hebron — apparent contradiction respecting - 517 

- Compared with xi. 21. Discrepancy respecting the Anakirn 635 

- Compared with xv. 63. Apparent contradiction respecting 

the conquest of the Canaanitish cities - - 518 

- Compared with xxi. 43, &c. Apparent contradiction. The 

conquest and extirpation of the Canaanites - - 635 

I Discrepancy as to the smiting of the Canaanitish kings - 635 

- Caleb and Joshua not the only men who entered Canaan - 515 

- Compared with xiii. 3. Discrepancy as to the Philistine cities 

being in the possession of Judah ... 638 

- Compared with 1 Chron. vi. 55. " Taanach and Gathrimmon " 525 

- The preceding distribution of the land altered in various 

particulars ------ 636 

- Addition to the chapter in many MSS. - - - 103 

- " Put away the strange gods," &c. ... 637 

- Compared with Judges xxi. 19. Discrepancy as to the place 

of the Sanctuary - - - - -637 

- " Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God " 640 

- The death and burial of Joshua - 640 



vi. 


1. 


vii. 


18, 20. - 


ix. 


5, 18, 56. 


xviii. 


30. 


XX. 


35. 



JUDGES. 

" The Jebusites dwell with the children of Benjamin, &c. 

unto this day " - 649 

" The Lord delivered them into the hand of Midian " - 518 

" The sword of the Lord and of Gideon " - - - 105 

Abimelech slays his seventy brethren — yet Jotham escapes - 518 

" Until the day of the captivity of the land" - - 649 
"Destroyed of the Benjamites 25,100 men" — ver. 46, 

25,000 - - - - - - 518 

" Shiloh, which is in the land of Canaan " - - - 649 





20. 


X. 


19. 


xii. 


11. 


xiii. 


8. 




14. 


xiv. 


27. 


XV. 


29. 


xvi. 


- 



Index II. — Passages in Scripture explained or illustrated. 1069 

EUTH. 
Chap. Verse. Page 

iii- 15. - - "The vail" ------ 235 

iv. 17—22. - The scope of the book of Buth - - - - 283 

1 SAMUEL. 

ii. 3. - -" Talk no more so exceeding proudly," &c. - 217,219 

vii. 13. - - Compared with ix. 16. Discrepancy as to the subjugation 

of the Philistines _--... 657 

ix. 1. — x. 16. - Compared with viii. x., 1 7 — 27. Discrepancy respecting the 

election of Saul as King of Israel - 658 

ix. 7. - - " What shall we bring the man ? " - - - 87 

- " And on whom is the desire of Israel ? " - - - 243 

- A various reading - - - - - - 103 

- "Bedan" - - - - - - -518 

- Compared with xi. 14, 15. Discrepancy as to the election of 
Saul ------- 658 

- Compared with 15, 26. Saul's disobedience •■ - 660 

- " His eyes were enlightened ".---- 237 

- "The strength of Israel will not . . . repent" - •■ 510 

- Compared with xvii. — xviii. 5. Discrepancy in the history 

of David's encounter with Goliath - - 518,658 

xvii. 54. - - David carries Goliath's head to Jerusalem — alleged 

anachronism - 659 

xviii. 10. - - Compared with xix. 9. Saul twice hurls a javelin at 

David _-._-_ 660 

27. - - Compared with 2 Sam. iii. 14.; 100 and 200 foreskins. No 

contradiction ------ 659 

xix. 2. - - Compared with xx. 2. 7. Saul seeking tc kill David — dis- 

crepancy between the accounts of this - - 659 

24. - -" Is Saul also among the prophets." Compare x. 10 — 12., 

the twofold mention of the proverb - 660 

xxi. 10. - - Compared with xxiii. 1 — 5; xxvii. 2. &c.; xxix. 1. &c. 
David's connection with Achish — alleged contra- 
dictions ------ 659 

xxii. 20. - - Compared with 1 Chron. xviii. 16. Abiathar the son of 
Ahimelek, and Ahimelek the son of Abiathar ; how 
reconciled - - - - - -526 

xxv. 1. - - Compared with xxviii. 3. Twofold account of Samuel's 

death - - - - - - 660 

xxvi. - - - Compared with xxiii. 19.- — xxiv. 23. David twice hunted 

by Saul, twice spares his life; not duplicate chronicles 
of the same event - 660 1 



2 SAMUEL. 
j. 10. - - The Amalekite's story of Said's death - - - 520 

iii. 14. - - See above, 1 Sam. xviii. 27. - - - 659 

vii. 12—16. - The divine promise to David, " I will set up thy seed," &c. 666 

viii. 4. Compared with 1 Chron. xviii. 4. Discrepancy in 

numbers - - „ - - 520, 525 

11; - - Compared with 1 Chron. xviii. 11. "Which David did 

dedicate ------ 525-6 

x. 6. - - Compared with 1 Chron. xix. 7., the number of the Ammo- 

nitish forces defeated by David - » - 52 5 

18. - - Compared with xix. 18. Discrepancy in numbers - - 520 

xxi. 19. - - Compared with 1 Sam. xvii. 4. The double Goliath - 660 

xxiii. 8. - -ComparedwithlChron.xi.il. Corruptions in the text of 

both places, relating to David's mighty men - - 620 

xxiv. 1. - - Compared with 1 Chron. xxi. 1. "The Lord moved David" 

— " Satan provoked David " — " to number Israel " - 521 
9. - - Compared with 1 Chron. xx. 5. Discrepancies in the numbers 

of Israel and Judah - - - - 521-2 

13. - - Compared with 1 Chron. xxi. 11,12. "Seven years' famine " 

— " Three years' famine " - - - - 522 



1070 Index II. — Passages in Scripture explained or illustrated. 



2 SAMUEL. 



Chap. Verse, 
xxi v. 24. 



Page 



Compared with 1 Chron. xxi. 25. Contradiction as to the 
price David paid Araunah, or Oman, for his threshing- 
floor 522 



XI. 
XV. 

xvi. 

XX. 

xxi. 
xxii. 



1 KINGS. 

2 6 (Heh. v. 6.) Compared with 2 Chron. ix. 25. " Forty thousand stalls " 

— " four thousand stalls " - - - 522 

11. - - Compared with 2 Chron. ii. 10. Discrepancy in the ac- 
counts of the quantity of provisions given by Solomon 
to Hiram - - - - - - 522 

1. " In the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of 

Israel were come out of the land of Egypt " 343-4, 551, 650-1 

15. - - Compared with 2 Chron. iii. 15. Discrepant statements re- 
specting the brazen pillars .... 523 

17. - - " Wreaths of chain work " - - 257 

26. - - Compared with 2 Chron. iv. 5. Discrepant statements re- 

specting Solomon's molten sea ... 527 

22. - -" Of the children of Israel did Solomon make no bondmen " 668 

23. - - Compared with 2 Chron. viii. 1 0. Discrepancy in numbers 523 

27. 28. - - Compared with x. 22. llepetitions of the same thing - 669 

28. - - Compared with 2 Chron. viii. 18. Discrepancy in numbers 523 
28. - - " Solomon made him," Jeroboam, " ruler over all the 

charge," &c. - - - - - -668 

10. - - Compared with 2 Chron. xiii. 2. Discrepancies as to the 

name of Jeroboam's mother - - - - 523 

10, 15. - - Compared with v. 23. Chronological discrepancies relating 

to Omri - - - - - - 523 

13, 22, 28, 35. Compared with xviii. 22. Apparent discrepancy as to the 

dwelling of the prophets of Jehovah in Samaria - - 669 
19. - - Compared with xxii. 38. Discrepancy as to the place of 

Ahab's death - - - - - 668 

15. - - Micah answered : " Go, and prosper " ... 287 
52. - - Corruption of the text here - 523 



xiv. 
xv. 
xvii. 



xix. 

xxiii. 



13. 

16. 

26. 

27. 

13, &c. - 

1, 10. - 

27. 
30. 
6. 

35. 



2 KINGS. 

" A captain of the third fifty " - - - -111 

" Jehosaphat being then king of Judah" — an error of 

transcription ------ 523 

Compare 1 Kings xxi. 19. above ... - 668 
Compared with 2 Chron. xxii. 9. Contradictory accounts 

of the death of Ahaziah - - - - 526 
Compared with 2 Chron. xxii. 8. The murder of the 

brethren of Ahaziah - - - - - 526 

Discrepancies in numbers ----- 524 

Compared with xv. 1, 32, 34. Discrepancies •■ - 524 

Compared with xvii. 1. Chronological discrepancies - - 524 
Compared with 2 Chron. v. 26. The deportation of Israel 

attributed to Shalmaneser and Tiglathpileser - - 525 

The destruction of Sennacherib's army ... 335 
Compared with 2 Chron. xxxv. 24. Discrepancy as to the 

death of Josiah - 524 
Compared with Jer. xxii. 19. ; xxxvi. 30. Discrepancy as 

to the death of Jehoiakim - - - - 524 
Compared with 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9. Discrepancy as to 

Jehoiachin's age ----- 524 

■ Compared with Lev. Iii. 28. Discrepancy in numbers - 525 
Compared with 2 Chron. xxxvi. 9, 10. Discrepancy as to 

Zedekiah's relation to Jehoiachin - 527 

The text defective - - - - - - 103 



Index II. — Passages in Scripture explained or illustrated. 1071 



Chap. 



xvi. 


7. &c. 


xviii. 


4. 




11. 


xix. 


7, 


xxi. 


1 




5. 




11, 12 




25. 



and xix. 45. " Aner and 



Discrepancy in numbers 



1 CHRONICLES. 
"V erse. 

26. - - See 2 Kings xvii. 6. 
70. (Heb. 55.) Compared with Josh. xvii. 11 
Bileam " - 

- A psalm of praise by David 

- Compared with 2 Sam. viii. 4. 

- See 2 Sam. viii. 11. 

- Compared with 2 Sam. x. 6. 

- " Satan provoked David to number Israel " 

- The census of Judah and Israel - 

- Compared with 2 Sam. xxiv. 13. " Three years of famine " 

- The price paid to Oman for his threshing-floor. See 2 Sam. 
xxiv. 13. ----- - 

- " Now the acts of David . . . behold they are written in the 
book of Samuel," &c. - 



Page 
525 

525 
685 
520 
525 
525 
521 
521-2 
522 



2:.). 



ii. 


10. 


iii. 


15. 


iv. 


3. 




5. 


viii. 


10. 




IS. 


ix. 


25. 


xiii. 


2. 


XX. 


31. 




3G. 


xxii. 


o. 




8. 




9. 


xxxiii 


11—1 


XXXV. 


25. 



2 CHRONICLES. 

- Compared with 1 Kings v. 11. Discrepancies in numbers - 522 

- Compared with 1 Kings vii. 15. Measure of the brazen 

pillars _.-_.. 593 

- An incorrect reading - - - - - 525 

- Compared with 1 Kings vii. 26. Discrepancy in numbers - 527 

- Compared with 1 Kings ix. 23. Discrepancy in numbers - 523 

- Compared with 1 Kings ix. 28. Discrepancy as to a 

number _..... 523 

- Compared with 1 Kings iv. 26. (Heb. v. 6.). Solomon's 

horses, chariots, &c. ----- 522 

- Compared with 1 Kings xv. 10. Name of Abijah's 

mother _-_.__ 523 

- Compare 2 Kings viii. 16 , which see above - - 523 

- Compared with 1 Kings x. 22. " Ships of Tarshish " - 686 

- Compared with 2 Kings viii. 6. Ahaziah's age - 105, 527 

- Compared with 2 Kings x. 13. Ahaziah's brethren - 526 

- Compared with 2 Kings ix. 27. Ahaziah's death - - 526 

- Manasseh's prayer - 1039 

- Jeremiah's lamentation for Josiah - 886 



EZRA. 

Compared with Neh. vii. 
" Plainly read " 



Discrepancies in numbers 



- 527 
12 



NEHEMIAH. 

- Compared with Ezra ii. - - - - - 527 

8. - - " They read in the book of the law of God distinctly " &c. - 12 

13,14,17. - The reading of the law at the feast of Passover - - 615 

24. - - " The Jews' language "- - - - -12 

ESTHER. 

5, 6. - - The carrying away of Mordecai into captivity - - 702 

20. - - Esther conceals her pedigree - - - - 702 

16. - - Extraordinary value attached to fasting - 699 

11. - - The Jews receive power to " stand for their life," &c. - 702 

20,23,32. -" And Mordecai wrote these things," &c. - - - 698 



. — xlii. 



10. 
20. 
27. 



JOB. 

- Analysis of the book - 

- " Man is born unto trouble," &c. - 

- " I would harden myself in sorrow " 

- " I have sinned; what shall I say," &c. 

- " I will be comforted " 



12-16 

■ 240 

■ 258 

- 240 

- 257 



1072 Index II. — Passages in Scripture explained or illustrated. 



Chap. 


Verse. 


X. 


20. 


xviii. 


2. 


xix. 


25—2 


xix. 


27. 


XX. 


11. 


xxix 


18. 


xxxiii. 


19. 



29. 



JOB. 

" That I may take comfort " 

" How long will it he ere ye make an end," &c. 

" I know that my redeemer liveth," &c. 

" Whom I shall see for myself," &e. 

" His bones are full of the sin of his'youth," &c. 

" I shall multiply my days as the sand " 

" The multitude of his bones " - 



Page 
257 
321 

733-6 
321 
321 
372 
257 



Yii. 


8. 


xvi. 


_ 




2. 




3. 




4. 




8, &c. - 




9. 


xvii . 


4. 




15. 


xix. 


4(5). ■ 


xxii. 


20. 


xxvi. 


6. 


xxvii. 


4. 


xxviii. 


9. 


XXX. 


12. 


xxxii. 


7. 


xxxiii. 


6. 


xxxiv. 


10. 


xxxviiL 10. 


xxxix. 


14(13) 


xl. 




xliL 


6. 




7. 


xlv. 


- 




6, 7. - 


xlix. 


12. 




18. 


li. 


5. 


Ixiii. 


1, 2. 


lxv. 


13. 


Ixviii. 


18. 


lxxii. 


20. 


lxxvi. 


11. 


Ixxx. 


17. 


lxxxiv. 


7. 




5, (6). ■ 




6,(7). 


Ixxxix 


, 8. 




12. 


xc. 


11. 




13. 


xcvii. 


7. 


c. 


3. 


cii. 


26, &c. 


civ. 


3. 




16. 


cv. 


28. 


cvi. 


17. 18. 


cix. 


17—19. 


cxii. 


4. 


cxviii. 


24. 


cxix. 


7. 



PSALMS. 

" Therefore the ungodly shall not stand," &c. 
Messianic interpretation - 

'• Judge me, O Lord, according to my righteousness " 
Passim ------ 

" O my soul, thou hast said," &c. - 

" To the saints that are in the earth," &c. - 

" Their sorrows shall be multiplied," &c. 

" I foresaw the Lord always before me" - 

" My glory rejoiceth " 

" Concerning the works of men," &c. 

" As for me, I will behold thy face," &c. - 

" Their line is gone out through all the earth " 

" My soul — my darling " - 

" I will wash my hands in innocency," &c. 

" The house of the Lord " - 

■ " Peed them also, and lift them up for ever " 
" That my glory may sing praise to thee " 
A various reading - 

" By the word of the Lord were the heavens made " 
" The young lions " — " they that seek the Lord " - 

• " As for the light of mine eyes, it is also gone " 
" O spare me, that I may recover strength," &c. 
" Mine ears hast thou opened" - 

" Hermonites " - 

" Deep calleth unto deep " - 

Passim ------ 

" Thy throne, O God," &c. ... 

" Man being in honour abideth not " 

" While he lived he blessed his soul," &c. - 

" Behold, I was shapen in iniquity," &c. 

" My soul thirsteth for thee " - - - 

" They shout for joy ; they also sing " - 

"Thou hast ascended on high," &c. 

" The prayers of David, the son of Jesse, are ended" 

" The remainder of wrath shalt thou restrain " 

" Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand," &c 

■ " Blessed is the man whose strength is in thee," &c. 
" In whose heart are thy ways " - 

" The rain nlleth the pools " - - - 

" God is greatly to be feared in the assembly of his 

" The north and the south, thou hast created them," &c 

" Who knoweth the power of thy anger," &c. 

" Beturn, O Lord, how long ? " - 

" Worship him all ye gods " - - - 

. " And not we ourselves " - 

- '' Of old hast thou laid the foundation," &c. 

. " Who inaketh his angels spirits," &c. 

. " The trees of the Lord " - 

• " He sent darkness and made it dark " 

• " The earth opened and swallowed up," &c. 

. "Ashe loved cursing, &c. - _ _ 

• " Unto the upright there ariseth a light " - - 

• " This is the day the Lord hath made " - 
" Thy righteous judgments " 



- 


277 


- 


460 


- 


295 


- 


460 


- 


270 


- 


273 


- 


244 


- 


135 


224 


, 234 


- 


269 


- 


293 


- 


150 


- 


224 


- 


226 


- 


226 


- 


235 


- 


234 


- 


110 


- 


305 


- 


224 


- 


237 


- 


257 


- 


168 


- 


352 


391 


,400 


- 


460 


244 


, 305 


- 


318 


- 


270 


- 


302 


- 


333 


- 


391 


- 


161 


- 


214 




233 


292 


,407 


5 


!72-3 


- 


110 


- 


562 


:s" 


233 


3-34 


, 354 


- 


272 


- 


270 


102, 


303. 


- 


108 


- 


163 


222-3 


- 


218 


- 


302 


- 


516 


- 


761 


- 


301 


- 


287 


- 


204 



Index II. — Passages in Scripture explained or illustrated. 1073 



Chap. Verse. 
cxix. 62. 

131. 
cxxxii. 6. 
cxxxix. 8, 9. 

15. 
cxliii. 2. 



PSALMS. 

' At midnight I will rise," &c. 
' I longed for thy commandments " 
Lo, we heard of it at Ephratah," &c. 
; If I ascend up into heaven," &c. 
• The lowest parts of the earth " 
; In thy sight shall no man living be justified : 



Page 
234 
258 
352 
274 
225 
217 





22, 23 


- 




36. 


. 


X. 


12. 




xi. 


21. 




xiii. 


- 




XV. 


10. 




xvi. 


4. 
10, 13 


- 


xviii. 


22. 


- 


xxii. 


2. 


- 


xxiii. 


15, 16 


. 


XXV. 


22, (21 


)• 


xxvi. 


4,5. 




xxvii. 


6. 


- 


xxix. 


8. 
13. 


■ 


XXX. 


15. 


- 


xxxi. 


1—9. 

12. 
16. 




ii. 


12, 19. 


- 


iii. 


IS— 20 
21. 




vii. 


16. 


- 


ix. 


4-6. 


- 


xii. 


1—6. 


" 


iv. 


1—5. 




vii. 


1—9. 


- 


viii. 


5. 


" 


i. 


5, 6. 






10. 


- 


ii. 


4. 


- 


iii. 


18, 22. 


- 


v. 


25. 


- 


vi. 


9, 10. 


- 


vii. 


20. 


- 


viii. 23 


— ix. 1 




ix. 


2, (3). 


- 


xi. 


6-8. 


- 




14. 


- 


xii. 


3. 


- 


xiv. 


30. 


- 


xvi. 


1—6. 


- 


VOL. II. 





PROVERBS. 
" Drink waters out of thine own cistern," &c. 
Wisdom described < 

" The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way," &c. 
" He that sinneth against me," &c. 
" Love covereth all sins " - 

" Though hand join in hand the wicked shall not," &c. 
" Wealth gotten by vanity," &c. - 
" A soft answer turneth away wrath " 
" The Lord hath made all things for himself," &c. - 
" A divine sentence is in the lips of a king," &c. 
" Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing " 
" The rich and the poor meet together " - 
" My son if thy heart be wise," &c. 
" Thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head " . 
" Answer not a fool," &c, " Answer a fool," &c. 
" Faithful are the wounds of a friend " - - 

" Scornful men bring a city into a snare " - 
" The poor and the deceitful man meet together " - 
" The horse-leech hath two daughters," &c. 
" The words of King Lemuel," &c. - 

ECCLESIASTES. 
" I was king over Israel," &c. - - - - 

" Lo, I am come to great estate," &c. - 

" What can the man do that cometh after," &c. 
" I said in mine heart concerning the estate," &c. - 
'• Who knoweth the spirit of man," &c. 
" Be not righteous over much," &c. 
" For to him that is joined to all the living," &c. - 
" Remember now thy Creator," &c. 



408 
79-81 
305 
■224 
174 
258 
270 
491 
317 
491 
87 
234 
427 
236 
494 
427 
224 
234 
2 70 
777 



786 



- 786 

- 318 
784-5 

- 258 

- 318 

- 408 



SONG OF SOLOMON. 

'Behold thou art fair, my Love" - - - 800-1 

' How beautiful are thy feet," Sec. - - - - 80 1 

; I raised thee up under the apple-tree," &c. - - S01 

ISAIAH. 

; Why should ye be stricken any more " - 263,288,393 

Rulers of Sodom — people of Gomorrah " - - 226 

; They shall beat their 6words into ploughshares," &c. - 264 

: In that day the Lord will take away the bravery," &c. - 235 

Then- carcases were torn," &c. - - 242 

; Hear ye indeed, but understand not," &c. - - 471 

A razor that is hired," &c. - 222 

And they shall look imto the earth," &c. - - 115 
Thou hast multiplied the nation, and not increased," &c. 108 

The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb," &c. - - 393 

; The envy also of Ephraim shall depart," &c. - - 464 

Wells of salvation " - - - -^ - 391 

The firstborn of the poor " - - - -217 

; Send ye the lamb to the ruler," &c. - - - 325 
3 z 



1074 Index II. — Passages of Scripture explained or illustrated. 



Chap. Verse. 
xxi. ] . 
xxii. 1, 2. 



9, 10, 11, 
—20. 
14. 
8. 

23—29. 
25. 
32. 
7. 



XXVI. 

xxvii. 
xxviii. 

XXX. 

xxxvii. 



, } 



xxxviii. 12. 
5. 

7. 



xl. 
xlv. 



xlvi. 

xlviii. 

xlix. 

lii. 

liii. 

lv. 

lviii. 

lix. 
lxi. 

Ixiv. 

Ixv. 
lxvi. 



2. 
7. 
11. 
11. 

14, 15. 

9. 

6. 

10. 

12. 

20, 21. 

4. 

10. 

6. 

25. 

17. 



ISAIAH. 

Page 

" The desert of the sea " - - - - - 352 

" Behold a king shall reign in righteousness," &c. - - 305 

" He discovered the covering of Judah," &c. - - 258 

Various figurative allusions - 402 

" They that are dead ------ 224 

- " In measure when it shooteth forth " 244 

- "Doth the plowman plow all day," &c. - 407 

- " The appointed barley " - - - - - 245 

- " Where the grounded staff shall pass " - - 1 1 1 

- " I will send a blast upon him" - "336 

- " I have cut off as a weaver my life " - - - 257 
-" All flesh shall see it together " - - - - 87 

- " Surely the people is grass " - - - - 1 1 1 

- " Gates of brass " - - - - - - 352 

- " I form the light and create darkness," &c. - - 355 

- " Calling a ravenous bird from the cast " - - - 224 

- " How should thy name be polluted " - - - 270 

- " The lawful captive " - - - - 258 

- " As many were astonished at thee," &c. - - 278, 288 

- " He made his grave with the wicked," &c. - 220, 277 

- " Seek ye the Lord, while he may be found," &c. - - 426 

- " If thou draw out thy soul to the hungry" - - 103 

- " They shall build the old waste places," &c. - - 104 

- " The Redeemer shall come to Zion," &c. - - - 1 52 

- " They shall build the old wastes " - - - 104 

- " I will greatly rejoice in the Lord," &c. - 401 

- " We are all as an unclean thing," &c. - 402 

- " The wolf and the lamb shall feed together," &c. - - 300 

- " They that sanctify themselves . . . behind one," &c. - 356 



x. 

xiii. 

xxii. 

xxv. 

xxvii. 

xxxi. 



xxxvi. 

xliv. 

lii. 



JEREMIAH. 

23 — 26.- - " I beheld the east, and lo, it was without form," &c. - 402 

7. "Behold I will meet them and try them" - 391 

17. - - " Gather up thy wares " ----- 243 

1 — 10. - - " Go and get thee a linen girdle " - - - - 822 

19. - - "He shall be buried with the burial of an ass," &c. - 524 

1. - - Compared with Dan. i. 1. Chronological discrepancy. - 528 

2. - - '• Make thee bonds and yokes," &c. ... 822 

3. - - " I have loved thee with an everlasting love," &c. - - 289 
15. - - " A voice was heard in Ramah," &c. ... 196 
31. - -" Behold the days come saith the Lord," &c. - - 167 
30. •■ - " He shall have none to sit on the throne of David," &c. - 524 
17,18.- -" To burn incense unto the queen of heaven," &c. - - 355 
28. - -" Carried away captive in the seventh year 3023 Jews " - 525 



xiv. 14. 

xviii. 20. 

xxiii. 3, 8. 

xxxvi. 37. 



EZEKIEL. 

" These three men, <Nbah, Daniel, and Job " - - 707 

" The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father," &c. - 513 

" There they bruised the teats of their virginity," &c. - 257 

" Their way before me was as the uncleanness," &c. - 402 



DANIEL. 

i. 1. - -" In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim," &c. - 528,906-7 

5 — 18.- -" The kin^ appointed them a daily provision," &c. - 926 

1 7, 19, &c. - " As for these four children, God gave them knowledge," &c. 923 

iii. 3. and vi. 2. - " Then the princes, the governors, the captains," &c. - 927 

vi. 1. and ix 1. - " Darius " the Mede - 926-7 

4. - - " They could find none occasion nor fault," &c. - - 923 

8, 18. - - The lions' den - - - - - - 925 



Chap. 


Verse. 


viii. 


2. 


ix. 


1. 




3. 




24. 




24—27. 


X. 


13—20. 



Index II. — Passages of Scripture explained or illustrated. 1075 

DANIEL. 

Page 

" The province of Elarn " - •- - - - 929 

" Ahasuerus "- - - - - -928 

" I Daniel understood by books," &c. - 923 

" Holy of holies " - - - - - - 233 

" Seventy weeks are determined," &c. - - 913-15 

" The prince of the kingdom of Persia," &c. - - 931 

Analysis and view of the entire book - - 908 — 916 

HOSEA. 

i. . - - - - General view of the meaning of the chapter - - 822 

11. - -" Then shall the children of Judah," &c. - - - 464 

vi. 5. - - " Thy judgments are as the light that," &c. - - 268 

6. - - " I will have mercy, and not sacrifice," &c. - - 495 

8. - - " Gilead ... is polluted with blood " - - 243 

x. 12. - - " Break up your fallow ground," &c. - 401 

xi. 3. - - " I taught Ephraim . . . taking them by their arms " - 243 

xiii. 14. - - " death, I will be thy plagues," &c - - - 157 

JOEL. 

'■ j 1 *- 1 ^' 7^ ^j Description of locusts - - - - 950 

ii. 10. - - " The earth shall quake before them " ... 949 

17,20.- -" Give not thine heritage a reproach," &c. - 948-9 

iii. 10. - -" Beat your ploughshares into swords," &c. - - 264 

AMOS, 
iv. 1. - - " Hear this, ye kine of Bashan," &c. ... 391 

v. ' 9. - - " That strengthened the spoiled," &c. - - 257 
ix. 11, 12. - - " In that day, I will raise up the tabernacle of David," &c. 142, 952 

OBADIAH 

3. - - " Though thou exalt thyself as the eagle," &c. - - 353 

JONAH. 

General view of the contents and meaning of the book 956-60 

MIC AH. 

v. 2. - - " Thou Bethleheni-Ephratah," &c. - - - 113,963-4 

vi. 2. - - " Ye strong foundations " - - - - - 257 

NAHHM. 

General view of the book - 229-230 

ii. j 10 ^™^ j The destruction of Nineveh - - - - 341 

HABAKKUK. 

i. 5, 6. - - "Behold ye among the heathen, and regard," &c. - 88, 142, 968 

ii. 3, 4. - - " The vision is yet for an appointed time," &c. - - 1 69 

iii. 19. - -" To the chief singer upon my stringed instrument " - 967 

ZEPHANIAH. 

i. 4, 5. - - " I will cut off the remnant of Baal," &c. - - - 970 

i. 8. - - " The king's chikken " - 970 

iii. 15. - - " The Lord hath cast out thine enemy " - - - 971 

3 z 2 



1076 Index II. — Passages of Scripture explained or illustrated. 



Chap. 


Verse. 


ii. 


7. 




21,22. 


i — vi. 




iii. 


3. 


rii. 8.- 


— viii. 18. 


ix — xiv. 


xi. 


1—6. 




14. 


xii. 


10. 


xiv. 


1,2. 


L 


1. 


iii. 


1. 




23. 


ii. 


1—23. 




6. 




15. 




17,18. 




23. 


iii. 


3. 




16, 17. 


iv. 


1—11. 


v. 


3. 


T. 


13. 




19. 




23—25. 




34—36. 




39—42. 


vi. 


1. 




11. 




17, 18. 




25. 




28—30. 


rii. 


3, 4 


yiii. 


5—10. 




20. 




24. 


X. 


19. 




34. 


xi. 


10. 




29. 


xii. 


18, &c. 




40. 


xiii. 


31. 




32. 




35. 




44. 


XT. 


8, 9. - 


xvi. 


18. 


xviii. 


17. 


xix. 


5. 




24. 



HAGGAI. 

Page 

- " The desire of all nations shall come " - 242, 974 

- " I will shake the heavens and the earth," &c. - - 973 



ZECHARIAH. 

General view of these chapters ... 976-7 

- " Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments," &c. 288-9 

- " The word of the Lord came unto Zechariah," &c. - 279 
General view of these chapters ... 977-8 

- " Open thy doors, O Lebanon," &c. - - 981-2 

- " Then I cut asunder my other staff," &c. - 982 

- " They shall look upon me whom they have pierced " - 1 34 
-" Behold the day of the Lord cometh," &c. - - 289 

MALACHI. 

- " The word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi," - - 984 
-" Behold I will send my messenger," &c. - - - 116 

MATTHEW. 

- " Behold a virgin shall be with child," &c. - - 458-9 

- Discrepancy as compared with Luke ii. 22 — 39. - 529-530 

■ " And thou Bethlehem in the land of Juda," &c. - - 113 

■ " Out of Egypt have I called my son " - - 114, 189 

■ " Then was it fulfilled, &c. In Rama was there a voice 

heard," &c. - - - - - 114, 196 

• " He shall be called a Nazarene " - - - - 114 

■ " This is he that was spoken of by the prophet, saying : 

the voice," &c - - - - -114 

• " And lo, the heavens were opened," &c. - 447 

■ The order of our Lord*s temptations different from that 

given by Luke - 430 

■ " The poor in spirit ------ 226 

■ " Ye are the salt of the earth " - - - 409, 523 

■ " Whosoever shall break one of the least of these," &c. - 360 

■ " Agree with thine adversary quickly," &c. - 285, 360 

■ " I say unto thee, Swear not at all," &c. - 309 

• " Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek," &c. - 494, 497 

■ " Thine alms ------- 265 

" Daily bread " - - - - - - 243 

- " But thou, when thou fastest, anoint," &c. ■■ - 493 
" Take no thought for your fife " - 496 
" Consider the lilies of the field," &c. - 334 

■ " Cast out the beam out of thine own eye," &c. - - 424 
The healing of the centurion's servant - - - 531 
" The son of man hath not where to lay his head " - 260 
" There arose a great tempest," &c. ... 235 
" It shall be given you . . . what ye shall speak," &c. - 329 
" I came not to send peace, but a sword " - - - 392 
" It is written, behold, I send my messenger," &c. - - 1 1 6 
" Take my yoke upon you," &c. - 225 
" That it might be fulfilled, &c, behold my servant," &c. - 116 
" So shall the son of man be three days," &c. - - 546 
" The kingdom of heaven is like unto a grain," &c. - 420 
" The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven " - - 421 
"I will utter things which have been kept secret," &c. - 196 
" The kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid," &c. - 564 
" This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth," &c. 118 
" Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build," &c. - 238 
" If he neglect to hear the church," &c. - 293 
" For this cause shall a man leave father," &c. - - 1 18 
" It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle," 

&c. - - 424, 495 



Index II. — Passages of Scripture explained or illustrated. 1077 



Chap. 


Verse. 


XX. 


29, 34. 


xxi. 


5. 




38. 


xxii. 


14. 




21. 




31—33. 


xxiv. 




xxvL 


7. 




17—20 




21. 




39. 




57, &c. 


xxvii. 


9, 10. 




32. 




34. 




37. 




44. 




46. 




54. 


xxviii. 


19,20. 


iii. 


5. 




23-^-30. 


iv. 


14. 


vi. 


17. 


viii. 


31. 


xi. 


23. 


X. 


46—52. 


xiii. 


11. 


xiv. 


3, &c. 




12—17 


xiv. 


22—24. 




72. 


XV. 


21. 




36. 


L 


5, 8. 




33. 




35. 


ii. 


1— 3. 




22—39. 


iii. 


4—6. 




18. 




19. 


iv. 


2—12. 




18, 19. 


v. 


36. 


vii. 


1—10. 




50. 




28. 




5S. 



MATTHEW. 

Page 
Healing of the two blind men. The narrative of the three 

Evangelists investigated ... 531-2 

" That it might be fulfilled, &c, Tell ye the daughter of 

Zion," &c. - - " - - - 119 

" They said . . . This is the heir; come let us kill him," &c. 532 
" Many are called, but few are chosen " - - - 289 

" Render unto Cffisar the things which are Cresar's," &c. 360-1 
" Touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read," 

&c. - 187 

General view of the contents ... - 462 

"There came unto him a woman having an alabaster 

box," &c ----- - 532-4 

" Now the first day of the feast of unleavened bread," &c. 534-6 
" When his disciples saw it they had indignation," &e. - 534 
"It is written, I will smite the shepherd," &c. - - 121 

" Not as I will, but as thou wilt " - - - -561 

Peter's threefold denial of his Master - - 537, 540 

" Then was fulfilled . . . and they took the thirty pieces of 

silver," &c. - - - - - - 121 

" They found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name," &c. - 547 

" They gave him vinegar to drink, mingled with gall " - 536 
" They set up over his head his accusation," &c. - - 541 

" The thieves also which were crucified with him," &c. - 53? 
" Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani," &c. - - - - 122 

" When the centurion, and they that were with him," &c. - 537 
" Go ye therefore, and teach all nations," &c. - • 329 



MARK 

: He looked round about on them with anger," &c. - 761 

' How can Satan cast out Satan ? " &c. - 558 

1 The sower soweth the word " - - - - 401 

; His brother Philip's wife; for he had married her " - 555 

And after three days rise again " ... 546 

' Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe," &c. - 269 

; And they came to Jericho, and as he went," &c. 531-2 

' Take no thought . . what ye shall speak," &c. - - 329 

; And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper," 

&c. - - - - - - 532-4 

1 And the first day of unleavened bread," &c. - 534-6 

This is my body ;" "this is my blood" ... 389 
; When he thought thereon he wept " - - - 263 

They compel one Simon a Cyrenian," &c. - - 547 

And one ran and filled a sponge with vinegar," &c. - 536 



LUKE. 

" Of the course of Abia " — " the order of his course " - 262 
" He shall reign for ever — of his kingdom there shall be 

no end ------- 546 

" The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee," &c. - - 225 
" There went out a decree from Csesar Augustus," 

&c. - 553-5, 1059-60 

529-30 

- 127 

- 561 

- 555 

- 5£0 

- 128 

- 409 

- 531 

- 478 

- 531 

- 263 



Supposed contradiction to Matt. ii. 1 — 23. 

" As it is written . . . The voice of one crying," &c. 

" And the soldiers likewise demanded of him," &c. 

" But Herod the Tetrarch being reproved," &c. 

" Being forty days tempted of the devil," &c. 

" The Spirit of the Lord is upon me" 

" No man putteth a piece of a new garment," &c. - 

The centurion's servant healed ... 

" Thy faith hath saved thee," &c. - 

" About an eight days after these sayings," &c. 

" Give diligence that thou mayest be delivered " 



1078 Index II. — Passages of Scripture explained or illustrated. 



Chap. 


Verse. 


xiv. 


5. 




8. 




18. 




26. 


XV. 


8—10. 


xvi. 


1—8. 


xviii. 


35—43 


xxi. 


14. 




15. 


xxii. 


7—15. 




21. 




54, &c. 


xxiii. 


26. 




38. 




39. 


xxiy. 


25-27 




44. 




50. 



LUKE. 

" Which of you shall have an ass, or an ox," &c. - 

" Lest a more honourable than thou be bidden," &c. 

" I pray thee have me excused " 

" If any man come to me and hate not his father," &c, 

" Either what woman having ten pieces of silver," &c. 

" There was a certain rich man, which had a steward," &c 



Page 

- 218 

- 262 

- 263 

- 496 
416-17 

418 



- "As he was come nigh unto Jericho, a certain blind man," &c. 531 

- " Settle it in your hearts not to meditate," &c. - - 329 

- " I will give you a mouth and wisdom " - - 218, 288 

- " Then came the day of unleavened bread," &c. - - 534 

- " Behold the hand of him that betrayeth me," &c. - - 534 

- Peter's threefold denial of his Master - - 537-40 

- " They laid hold of one Simon, a Cyrenian," &c. - - 547 

- " A superscription also was written over him," &c. - 541 

- " And one of the malefactors . . . railed on him," &c. - 537 

- " O fools, and slow of heart to believe," &c. - - 448 

- " The law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms " - 30 

- " He led them out as far as Bethany," &c. - 353 



i. 


1—18. 




10. 




18. 


iii. 


3. 




6. 




15. 




20, 21. 




30, 31. 


v. 


5. 




31, 37, 




37, 38. 


vi. 


25—65 


vii. 


21, 22. 




38. 


viii. 


14. 


X. 


9. 




34, 35. 


xii. 


1, &c. 




14, 15. 




27. 




40. 


xiii. 


1, &c. 


xiv. 


26. 


XV. 


25. 




26. 


xviii. 


12, &c. 


xix. 


14. 




17. 




19. 




36. 




37. 


sxi. 


17. 




18, 19. 



JOHN. 

" In the beginning was the Word," &c. - 305 

" The world was made by him" ... - 223 

" No man hath seen God at any time " - - 550 

" Except a man be born again," &c. - 293 

" That which is bom of the flesh is flesh," &c. - - 275 

" That whosoever believeth on him should not perish," &c. 218 

" Every one that doeth evil, hateth the light," &c. - - 339 

" He must increase," &c. " He thatcometh from above," &c. 325 

" A certain man who had an infirmity " - - - 263 

" If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true "• - 547 

" The Father himself . . . hath borne witness," &c. - 547 

Our Lord's discourse of the bread of life - 408 

" I have done one work, and ye all marvel," &c. - - 268 

" He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said," &c. - 131 

" Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true " - 547 
" I am the door "- - - - - -391 

" Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods ?" &c. - 187 
" Then Jesus, six days before the passover," &c. - 532-4 

" As it is written, Eear not, daughter of Zion," &c. - 132 

" Now is my soul troubled, and what shall I say ? " &c. - 271 

" Esaias said, He hath blinded their eyes," &c. - - 133 
" Now before the feast of passover, when Jesus knew," &c. 534-6 

" The Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost," &c. - - 329 

" The word that is written in their law, They hated me," &c. 133 

" The Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Eather " - 486 
Peter's threefold denial of his Lord - - 537-40 
" It was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth 

hour" - - - - - 540-1 

" And he, bearing his cross,~went forth," &c. '- - 547 

" Pilate wrote a title and put on the cross," &c. - - 541 

" That the Scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him," &c. 133 

" Another Scripture saith, They shall look on him," &c. - 134 

" Lord, thou knowest all things " - - - - 302 

" When thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth," &c. - 342 



ACTS. 

12. - - " The disciples returned . . . from the mount called Olivet " 353 

20. - - " It is written . . . Let his habitation be desolate," &c. - 134 

21. - - " Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord," &c. - 219 
25. - - " David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw," &c. - - 135 
17. - - " I wot that through ignorance ye did it," &c. - - 532 



Index II. — Passages of Scripture explained or illustrated. 1079 



Chap. 


Verse. 


iii. 


22, 23. 


vii. 


2. 




6, 7. 




14. 




15, 16. 




16. 




42, 43. 


viii. 


32, 33. 


ix. 


7. 




31. 


X. 


1. 


xi. 


26. 


xii. 


20—24 


xiii. 


20. 




27. 




41. 




48. 


XV. 


14—17. 


xvi. 


6—8. 




13. 


xvii. 


7. 




23. 




31. 


xix. 


35. 


xxii. 


9. 


xxvi. 


28. 


xxvii. 


9. 



ACTS. 

Page 
" Moses said ... A prophet shall the Lord your God raise 

up," &c. - - - - - 136 

" The God of glory appeared unto our father Abraham," &c 549 

" God spake on this wise, that his seed should sojourn," &c. 137 

" Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob," &c. - 550 

" So Jacob went down into Egypt," &c. - - - 551 

" That Abraham bought for a sum of money," &c. - 138 
" As it is written in the book of the Prophets, O ye house of 

Israel," &c. - - - - - - 140 

" The place of the Scripture which he read was this," &c. - 140 
" The men . . . stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing 

no man "-----_ 548 

" Then had the churches rest," &c. ... 341 

" A centurion of the band called the Italian band" - 357 

" The disciples were called Christians first," &c. - - 357 

" Herod was highly displeased with them of Tyre," &c. - 341 

" After that he gave unto them judges by the space," &c. 344, 551 
"Because they knew him not, nor yet the voices of the 

prophets," &c. - 532 

" Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish," &c. - 142 
" As many as were ordained to eternal life " - 562-3 

" Simon hath declared how God at first did visit," &c. 142, 393 

" Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia," &c. - 353 

" Where prayer was wont to be made " - - - 245 

" These do contrary to the decrees of Cassar " - - 265 
" I found an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown 

God" - - - - - - 341 

" Whereof he hath given assurance unto all men " - - 263 
" The town clerk " .... 356-7 

" They that were with me heard not the voice," &c. - 548 

" Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian " - - 214 

" The fast was now already past " - - - - 262 



ROMANS. 

16. - -" I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ " - - 559 

17. - - " As it is written, The just shall live by faith " - 143 
12 — 16. - " For as many as have sinned without law," &c. - - 190 
14. - - "The Gentiles . . . do by nature," &c. - - 236, 548 

18. - - " Appro vest the things that are more excellent " - - 243 

24. - - " The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles," 

&c. - - - - - - - 143 

29. - - " Circumcision of the heart " .... 391 

1 — 10. - - " What advantage then hath the Jew ? " &c. - 325-6 

3. - - " For what if some did not believe," &c. - - - 279 

4. - -" As it is written, That thou mightest be justified," &c. - 144 

8. - - " As we be slanderously reported " ... 270 
10 — 12. - " As it is written, There is none righteous," &c. - - 144 

13. - - " Then- throat is an open sepulchre," &c - - - 144 

14. - -" Whose mouth is fall of cursing," &c. - - - 145 

15. &c. - " Their feet are swift to shed blood," &c. - - - 145 

25. - - " To be a propitiation " ----- 266 
25. - - " Who was delivered for our offences," &c. - - 304 
12 — 21. - " As by one man sin entered into the world," &c. - 286, 291 
18, 19. - - " As by one offence, judgment came upon all men," &c. 225, 479 

5. - - " When we were in the flesh, the motions of sin," &c. - 300 
14. - - "Sold under sin" - - - - - 259 
25 — viii. 1. -" I thank God through Jesus Christ," &c. - - - 296 
20,21.- - " The creature was made subject to vanity " - - 269 

3. - - "I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ," &c. 273 

4. - " Who are Israelites ; to whom," &c. - 441 

5. - - " Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the 

flesh," &c. ----- 268 

9. - - " This is the word of promise, At this time I will come," &c. 146 

3z 4 



1080 Index II. — -Passages of Scripture explained or illustrated. 



KOMANS. 

Chap. Verse. Page 

ix. 14 — 21. - " What shall we say then ? Is there unrighteousness," &c. - 290 

27,28. - - " Esaias crieth . . . Though the number of the children of 

Israel," &c. - - - - - - 148 

33. - - " As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling stone," 

&c - - - - - - - 148 

x. 6, &c. - - " The righteousness which is of faith speaketh in this wise," 

&c. - - - - - - - 149 

7, 8. - - " Or who shall descend into the deep ? " - 161 
18. - - " Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth," &c. - 150 

xi. 3. - " Lord, they have killed thy prophets," &c. - - 151 

8. - - " As it is written, God hath given them the spirit of 

slumber," &c. - - - - -151 

21. - -" If God spared not the natural branches, take heed," &c. - 219 
26, 27. - " As it is written, There shall come out of Zion the De- 
liverer," &c. - - - - - -152 

33 — 35. - "O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom," &c. - 273 

xii. 6. - - " Let him prophesy according to the proportion of faith " - 311 

20. - - "In so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head " - 236 

xiii. 14. - •• " Put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ " - 237 

xiv. 5. - - " One man esteemeth one day above another," &c. - 481 

11. - - " It is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall 

bow," &c. - - - - - - 153 

17. - - " Tbe kingdom of God is . . . righteousness, peace, and 

joy," &c. - - - - - - 558 

xv. 10. - - " Again he saith, Eejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people " - 154 

12. - - " Esaias saith, There shall be a root of Jesse," &c. - - 182 



1 COKINTHIANS. 

8. - - " Which none of the princes of this world knew," &c. - 532 

9. - - "As it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard," &c. 155, 294 
13. - - " Comparing spiritual things with spiritual " - - 265 
2. - - " I have fed you with milk," &c. - 218 
9—13. - " Ye are God's building," &c. .... 410 

11. - -" Other foundation can no man lay," &c. - 238 

15. - -"So as by fire" - - - - - - 259 

20. - - "Again, the Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise," &c. - 156 

- - - General view of the chapter - - - - 281 

25, 26. - - " Concerning virgins I have no commandment," &c. - 489 

8 — 13. - - " Meat commendeth us not to God," &c. ... 548 

9,10. - - " It is written, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox," 

&c. - - - - - - - 187 

20. - - " Unto the Jews I became a Jew, that I might gain," &c. - 497 

4. - - " That rock was Christ " - - - - -391 

6. - - ' ; These things were our examples " - - - 193 
8. - -" Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them," &c. - 550 

20. 21. - - "I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice," &c. 156, 548 
24. - - "Let no man seek his own, but every man," &c. - - 496 

33. - - " Even as I please all men in all things," &c. - - 548 
1. - - " Be ye followers of me even as I also am of Christ " - 569 

5. - - " Every woman that prayeth, or prophesieth," &c. - - 549 

10. - ~ "Eor this cause ought the woman to have power on her 

head," &c. - - - - - 259 

7. - - " The manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man," &c. 231 

21. - - " In the law it is written, With men of other tongues," &c. 156 

34. - - " Let your women keep silence in the churches," &c. - 549 

22. - - " As in Adam all die, even so in Christ," &c. - - 225 
29. » - " Else what shall they do that are baptized for the dead ? " 

&c. - - - - - - - 370 

32. - - " If after the manner of men, I have fought with beasts," &c. 259 

33. - - " Evil communications corrupt good manners " - - 176 



Index II. — Passages of Scripture explained or illustrated. 1081 

1 COEINTHIANS. 

Chap. Verse. Page 
xv. 44 — 47. - " It is sown a natural body ; it is raised a spiritual body," 

&c. - - - - - 364-5 

50. - - " Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God " - 225 
55. - - " O death, where is thy sting ? O grave, where is thy 

victory?" - - - - - -157 

xvi. 22. - -" Let him be Anathema Maran-atha " ... 760 

2 COEINTHIANS. 

iv. 5. - -" Who both will bring to light the hidden things " - 225 

10. - - " Bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus " - 237 
v. 17. - -" If any man be in Christ he is a new creature " - - 397 

18—20. - " All things are of God, who hath reconciled us," &c. 483-4 

19. - - " Eeconciling the world unto himself," &c. - - 218 

20. - - " We pray you in Christ's stead, be ye," &c. - - 329 

21. - - " He hath made him to be sin for us," &c. - - 225 
vi. 16. - -" As God hath said, I will dwell in them," &c. - - 158 

17, 18. - - " Wherefore come out from among them," &c. - - 158 
viii. 8 — 10. - - "I speak not by commandment, but by the forwardness," 

&c. - - - - - - - 278 

is. 5. - - " Make up beforehand your bounty — as a matter of 

bounty" __..-. 265 

9- "His righteousness remaineth for ever" ... 209 

- " The fruits of your righteousness " - 265 

■ "Are they Hebrews? so am I," &c. ... 432 
•" I will very gladly spend and be spent," &c. - - 561 

GALATIANS. 

• " I marvel that ye are so soon removed," &c. - - 39S 

• " If I yet pleased men, I should not be a servant," &c. - 548 

• " Now preacheth the faith," &c. ... - 398 

■ " Gave me and Barnabas the right hand," &c. - - 398 

- " It is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not," &c. 159 

■ "It is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree " 160 

■ " Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises," &c. - 192 

■ "The covenant that was confirmed before of God," &c. - 549 

■ "As many as have been baptized into Christ," &c. - 237 

■ " The elements of the world " 227 

■ " Ye observe days, and months, and times," &c. - - 48 1 

• "What saith the Scripture ? cast out the bondwoman," &c. 160 

■ " The works of the flesh are manifest," &c. - - 226 

■ " Bear ye one another's burdens. Every man shall bear his 
own burden " - 549 

-" The Israel of God " - - - - - 226 

- " From henceforth let no man trouble me," &c. - - 237 

EPHESIANS. 

■ " That we should be to the praise of his glory," &c. - 483 

• "In whom we also have obtained an inheritance " - - 270 

■ " The spirit of wisdom and revelation" - - - 214 

■ " Gave him to be head over all things to the church" - 557 

• " And were by nature children of wrath," &c. - 236, 485 

■ "Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened," &c. - 301 

■ "Ye are built upon the foundation of the apostles and 
prophets" - - - - - 238 

8. - -" Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high " - 161 

8. " Ye were sometimes darkness, but now ye are light," &c. - 397 
14. - - "Wherefore he saith, Awake, thou that sleepest," &c. 161, 270 

27. - - " That it should be holy and without blemish " - - 219 
32. - - " This is a great mystery, but I speak of Christ," &c. 187, 193 

11. - -" Put on the whole armour of God " - 557 
17. - -" The sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God " - 236-7 





10. 


xi. 


22—27 


xii. 


15. 


j 


6. 




10. 




23. 


ii. 


9. 


iii. 


10. 




13. 




16. 




17. 




27. 


iv. 


3. 




10, 11. 




30. 


v. 


19—21. 


vi. 


2, 5. 




16. 




17. 


, 


12. 




13. 




17. 




22,23. 


ii. 


3. 




5. 




20. 



1082 Index II. — Passages of Scripture explained or illustrated. 

PHILIPPIANS. 

Chap. Verse. Page 

i. 10. - - " That ye may approve things that are excellent " - 236 

COLOSSIANS. 

ii. 9. - -" The fulness of the Godhead " - - - -226 

18. - -" Let no man beguile you of your reward," &c. - 482-3 

iii. 1. - - " If ye then be risen with Christ " - - 226,391 

5. - - " Covetousness " - - - - - - 220 

10. - - " And have put on the new man " - 237 

16. - -" Let the word of Christ dwell in you," &c. - - 301 

iv. 18. - - " The salutation by the hand of me Paul" - - 396 

1 THESSALONIANS. 

iv. 17. - - " Then we, which are alive " - 278 

v. 23. - - " Your whole spirit, and soul, and body " - - - 238 



1 TIMOTHY. 

" Professing godliness " - - - - - 263 

" She shall be saved " - 218 

" The house of God " - - - - - 226 

"But if I tarry long, that thou mightest know," &c. - 270 

" Especially of those that believe " ... 226 

" Widows indeed " _____ 226 

" Specially for those of his own house " - - - 226 

"If she have washed the saints' feet" - - - 498 

" Which some professing " - 262 









ii. 


10. 




15. 


iii. 


15. 




16. 


iv. 


10. 


v. 


3. 




7(8). 




10. 


vi. 


21. 



i. 


8. 




9. 


ii. 


4. 




13. 




20. 




25. 


iii. 


8. 




12. 


iv. 


14. 



2 TIMOTHY. 

Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony " - 559 

A holy calling " _--_-_ 226 
That he may please him who hath called him to be a 

soldier" -_„___ 262 
; He abideth faithful ; he cannot deny," &c. - 224-5 

In a great house there are not only vessels of gold," &c. - 407 

If God peradventure " _____ 226 

; Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses," &c. - 175 

Yea, and all that wiE live godly shall suffer persecution " 551 
Alexander, the coppersmith, &c, the Lord reward him," 

&C ■ - -.,... 761 



TITUS. 

12. - - " One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said," &c. 176 

15. - - " Unto the pure, all things are pure " - - - 288 

8. - - " This is a faithful saying, and these things I will," &c. - 288 



PHILEMON. 

" Yet for love's sake I rather beseech thee," &c. 



HEBREWS. 

6. - - " He saith, Let all the angels of God worship him " 162, 194 

10, 12. - - "And thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the found- 
ation," &c. - - « - 163, 194 



Index II. — Passages of Scripture explained or illustrated. 1083 



HEBEEWS. 

Chap. Verse. Page 

ii. 9. " Should taste death for every man " - - - 476 

10. - - " Bringing many sons unto glory " - 295 

iii, 4. - - " Every house is builded by some man," &c. - - 287 

iv. 7. - - "Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying," &c. - - 184 

12. - -" The word of God is quick and powerful," &c. - - 236 

v. 7 — 9. - - "Who, in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up," 

&c. - _ - - - - - - 274 

vi. 1,2. - - " Not laying again the foundation of repentance," &c. - 278 

9. - -" But, beloved, we are persuaded better things," &c. - 294 
viii. 8. - - " Behold, the days come, saith the Lord," &c. - - 166 
ix. 4. - - " Which had the golden censer," &c. - - - 551 

10. - - " Which stood only in meats and drinks," &c. - - 271 
x. 5, &c. - - " He saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not," &c. - 168 

37.38. - - " He that shall come, will come," &c. - - - 169 
xi. 13. - - " Confessed they were strangers and pilgrims," &c. - 187 

21. - -" Worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff " - - 170 

26. - -" Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches,' - ' &c. - 306 

33.39. - " All these, &c, received not the promise " - - 549 
xiii. 5. - - " He saith, I will never leave thee," &c. - - - 1 7 1 

7. - - " Whose faith follow, considering the end," &c. - - 558 
15. - - " The sacrifice of praise to God " - 226 
17. - - " This is unprofitable for you " - - - - 219 
23. - - " Our brother Timothy is set at liberty " - - 324 

JAMES. 

i. 13. - - " God cannot be tempted . . , neither tempteth he any 

man" ._..._ 549 

ii. 24. - - " By works a man is justified," &c. - 478 (also 307) 

iii. 14. - -" Glory not, and lie not against the truth " - - 218 

iv. 5. - - " Do ye think the Scripture saith in vain," &c. - - 1 72 

8. - - " Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, &c. ... 502 
v. 11. - - " Ye have heard of the patience of Job," &c. - - 707 

14. - - " Is any sick among you ? Let him call for the elders," &c. 484 

1 PETER 

i. 10 — 12. - " Of which salvation the prophets have searched," &c. - 457 

ii. 2, 5. - - " The sincere milk of the word " — " a spiritual house " - 226 

8. - - " Whereunto also they were appointed " ... 292 
iii. 14,15.- - " Be not afraid of their terror," &c. - - - 174 
iv. 8. - - " Charity covereth the multitude of sins " - - - 174 
v. 13. - - "The church that is at Babylon, elected together," &c. - 243 

2 PETEE. 

i. 20. - - " No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private inter- 
pretation" - - - - - -471 

ii. 15. - - " Baalam, the son of Bosor " - 550 

16. - - " The dumb ass speaking with man's voice " - - 585 

iii. 18. - -" Grow in grace, and in the knowledge," &c. - - 226 

1 JOHN. 

i. 1,2. - - " That which was from the beginning," &c. - - 356 

8 10. - - " If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves," &c. - 317 

ii. 22, 23. - - " Who is a liar, but he who denieth that Jesus," &c. - 356 

iii. 6. - -" Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not," &c. - - 317 

9. - -" Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin" - - 478 
iv. 2, 3, 14, 15. - " Hereby know we the Spirit of God," &c. - 356 
v. 6, 7, 8. - - " This is he that came by water and blood," &c. - - 356 



1084 Index II. — Passages of Scripture explainea or illnstratea. 

l JOHN. 

Chap. "Verse. Page 

v. 18, 19. - - " We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not," &c. 559 

20. - - " This is the true God " - - - - - 223 



JUDE. 

9,14. - -" Michael the archangel," &c. " Enoch prophesied,' 
19. - - " Sensual, not having the Spirit " - 



KEVELATION. 

" He shall rule them with a rod of iron," &c. - - 1 74 

" Because thou sayest, I am rich," &c. - 391 

" They cried with a loud voice, How long, O Lord," &c. 761-2 

" Them that had gotten the -victory over the beast," &c. - 260 

" 1 saw thrones, arid they sat upon them," &c. - - 393 

" He said unto me, These sayings are faithful," &c. ■• 326 



ii. 


27. 


iii. 


17. 


vi. 


10. 


XV. 


2. 


XX. 


4, 5 


xxii. 


6— 



1087 



INDEX III. 

SUBJECTS AND AUTHORS. 



Abba Salama, Frumentius, so called, author 
of the Ethiopic Version from the LXX., 
66. 

Abul Baracafs Scholia upon Abu Said's 
Arabic Version, 79. 

Abulpharagius, his Historia Dynastiarum, 
referred to, 64. 

Abu Said, his Arabic Version from the Sa- 
maritan Pentateuch, 79. 

Adler, referred to, 78. 

yEgyptius, Codex, 43. 

Mlfric's Translation of the Pentateuch into 
Anglo-Saxon, 85. 

Ages of the Hebrew language, 10, 11. 

Ahasuerus, who, 928. 

Akerman's Numismatic Illustrations of the 
New Testament, referred to, 357. 

Aldine Edition of the Septuagint, 62. 

Alexander's (Prof. J. A.) Commentary on 
the Psalms, 194. 407. On Isaiah, quoted 
verbally or in substance, 228. 305. 371, 
372. 459. 842. 849. 854. 

Alexander's (the elder) Canon of the Old and 
New Testaments ascertained, edited by 
Dr. Morison, referred to and charac- 
terised, 1058. 

AlforcTs Greek Testament, referred to, 486. 

Alfred's (King) Version of the Psalms, 85. 

Allegory, its nature, 405, 406. Its interpre- 
tation, 406—411. 

Allix's judgment of the Ancient Jewish 
Church against the Unitarians, referred 
to, 1052. 

Alter, 67. 

Amatory poetry used to inculcate religious 
truths, 793, 794. 803. 

American Biblical Repository, referred to, 36. 

American Bibliotheca Sacra, quoted, 761. 

Ammon's Notes on Ernesti, quoted, 362. 

Amos, the prophet, historical notice of, 950, 
951. Occasion of his prophesying, 951. 
The book of, divisions, ibid, 952. Cha- 
racter of, in substance and form, 952. 
Allusions to, in other prophets, 953. 
Quotations from, in the New Testament, 
ibid. 

Analogy of faith, its nature, 311 — 315. Its 



uses in the interpretation of Scripture, 
315, 316. The principles resulting from 
it, 316 — 319. Caution respecting the em- 
ployment of, 319, 320. To be distin- 
guished from exposition by parallels, 320. 

Analogy of languages as a source' of inter- 
pretation, 253, &c. Its uses illustrated in 
application to Syriac, Chaldee, &c, 255 — ■ 
259 ; to Greek and Latin, 259 ; to lan- 
guage in general, 260, 261 ; to Joseph ns 
and Philo, 262 ; to the writers called the 
Koivoi, 262, 263 ; to Pagan writers, 264 ; 
to the Septuagint, 265 ; to the apocry- 
phal productions of the Old Testament, 
266. Principles for guidance in the right 
application of, 266, 267. 

Angelo Mai's Spicilegium Romanum, re- 
ferred to, 999. 

Angelology of the Book of Daniel, 930, 931. 

Angels, the seven, of the Book of Tobit, 
1001. 

Anger, De Onkelo Chaldaico quern ferunt 
Pentateuchi paraphraste, &c, 71. 

Anglo-Saxon Version from the Vulgate, 85. 

Anthropopathy of Scripture, canon for its 
interpretation, 403, 404. 

Antiochus Epiphanes, the little horn of Da- 
niel, 911. 

Apocrypha, general remarks on the, 1056 — 
1058. 

Aquila, who, 55. His Greek Version, ibid. 
56. As a source of interpretation, 244. 

Arabic language, its copiousness and dialects, 
25, 26. Applied to the interpretation of 
Scripture, 256—258. 

Arabic Versions, from the LXX., 68. From 
the Syriac, 77, 78. Translations, 78. Of 
the Samaritan Pentateuch, 79. 

Aramaan language, 24, 25. 

Aratus, quoted by Paul, 176. 

Aristeas's account of the Septuagint Version, 
47, 48. 

Aristobulus, the fragment of, which speaks 
of the Septuagint, 48. 

Armenian Version, from the LXX., 67. 

Arnaud's Recherches Critiques sur l'Epitre 
de Jude, referred to, 176. 



Index III. — Subjects and Authors. 



^ ^uv. T.) on the Interpretation of 
Prophecy, quoted, 457, 458. 462, 463. 

Arrian, his statement respecting Cyrus, 920. 

Asaria (Rabbi), referred to, 53. 

Amrias, the Song of, 936, 937. 

Asher (R. Aaron Ben), his collection of 
Eastern and Western MSS., referred to, 
42. 

Athanasius, the Monophysite Patriarch of 
Antioch, referred to, 65. 

Athias (Joseph), his edition of the Hebrew 
Bible, 44. 

Auberlen, Der Prophet Daniel und die Offen- 
barung Johannis, quoted, 912. 

Augustine cited respecting the Versio Itala, 
63. Eespecting the Books of Wisdom 
and Ecclesiasticus, 1057. 

Authorship of the Pentateuch, 593—633. 
Of the Book of Joshua, 640., &c. Of the 
Book of Judges, 649. Of Ruth, 653., &c. 
Of 1 and 2 Samuel, 661., &c. Of 1 and 
2 Kings, 670. Of Chronicles, 683. Of 
Ezra and Nehemiah, 690. 692. Of Esther, 
698., &c. Of Job, 731., &c. Of the 
Psalms, 748., &c. Of Proverbs, 772., 
&c. Of Ecclesiastes, 786., &c. Of the 
Song of Solomon, 806., &c. Of the later 
prophecies of Isaiah, 849 — 862. Of the 
latter part of Zechariah, 980 — 3. 



Balaam, his character and prophecy, 584, 
585. 

Balaam's Ass, did it really speak ? 585. 

Babylonian Codex, 43. 

Bohr's Symbolik des Mos. Cultus, referred 
to, 601. 

Bar-Cochba coins, 17. 

Barnes's Commentary on Job, cited, 710. 
726. 

Baruch, the book of, contents, 1033. Variety 
of authorship, 1033, 1034. Not the work 
of Baruch, the friend of Jeremiah, 1034 — 
1036. Original language of, 1036. Ob- 
ject of, ibid. 1037. Translator, 1037. 
How regarded by Jews and Christians, 
ibid. MSS. and Versions, ibid. 1038. 
Epistle of, 1038. 

Basmuric Version from the LXX., 67. 

Basnage, his History of the Jews, referred 
to, 1047. 

Bath Kol, what, 827. 

Bauer, his Critica Sacra, referred to, 56. 
Entwurf einer Hermeneutik, referred to, 
489. 491. 

Bauer meister's Commentarius in Sapientiam 
Solomonis, referred to, 1014. 

Baumgar -ten's Theologischer Commentar 
zum Pentateiich, referred to, 8. 604 , &c. 

Baumgarten-Crusius, his Opuscula Theolo- 
gica, 719. 

Baur's Der Prophet Amos erklaert, referred 
to, 950, 951. 

Baxter's Practical Works, referred to, 500. 
Life of Faith, 501. 



Beasts, the four, of Daniel, 909. 

Beck's Versuch einer pneumatisch her- 
meneutischen Entwickelung, referred to, 
186. 

Bel and the Dragon, the story of, 939. 

Belshazzar's feast and death; difficulties in- 
volved in the narrative of, examined, 926, 
927. 

Bendtsen's Specimen' excitationum critica- 
rum in Vet. Test, libros Apocryphos e 
Scriptis Patrum et antiquis Versionibus, 
referred to, 1029. 

Bennett (Dr. J.), quoted on Solomon's Song, 
799. 

Bennett, the Jew, his Temple of EzekieL 
cited, 904. 915. 

Bernstein, Ueber das Buch Hiob, referred 
to, 721. 

Bertheau, Das Buch der Richter, referred 
to, 646. Die Biicher der Chronik, re- 
ferred to, 697. Die Spriiche Salomo's 
erklart, 772. De Secundo Maccabeorum 
libro, referred to, 1048, 1049. 

Bertholdt's Einleitung, referred to, 573. 
1047., &c. 

Bialloblotzky' s De Legis Mosaics abroga- 
tion, referred to, 1059. 

Bible, Hebrew, printed editions of, 44, 45. 
Celebrated MSS. of, 43. Description of 
various MSS. of, 88—103. 

Bibliotheca Sacra, American, referred to, 
761. 

Bibliotheca JRabbinica, referred to, 1042. 

Blair's Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles 
Lettres, quoted, 386. 

Blayney's Jeremiah and Lamentations, cited 
substantially or verbally, 870, 871. 884. 
886. 981. 983, 984. 

Bleek, Ueber die Stellung Apokryphen, 766. 
1058. 

Blunt (Rev. J. J.), his Four Sermons, cited, 
306. 

Bohemian Bible, 248. 

Bomberg's Rabbinical Bible, 42. 44. 

Bonner Zeitschrift fur Philosophic, &c., 
referred to, 1009. 

Book of the Wars of the Lord, 620. 

Bottcher's Proben, referred to, 904. 

Bowman, on the Roman Governors of Syria 
in the time of Christ, quoted, 1060. 

Boys' s Tactica Sacra, referred to, 431. 

Bretschneider's Historisch-dogmatische Aus- 
legung, quoted, 293. Lexicon, quoted, 
496. Dissertatio de libri Sapientiaa parte 
priore, refen-ed to, 1013. 1025. 

Brown's Self-interpreting Bible, quoted, 802. 

Bryanfs Sentiments of Philo-Judasus con- 
cerning the Aoyos, referred to, 364. Ob- 
servations on the plagues of Egypt, re- 
ferred to, 580. 

Buchanan's (Dr. C.) Malabar Synagogue 
Roll, 97. 

Bugati's Daniel Secundum editionem LXX. 
interpretum ex tetraplis desumptam, &c, 
referred to, 939. 

Bunsen's Essay on Ethnology, referred to, 



Index III. — Subjects and Authors. 



1087 



9. His Egypt, referred to, 511. Hip- 

polytus and his Age, 1015. 
Burton's Testimonies of the Ante-Nicene 

Fathers to the Divinity of Christ, quoted, 

368, 369. To the Trinity, 399. \ 
Butler's Analogy, referred to, 487, 488. 
Buxtorf's Tiberias, referred to, 39. 70. 



Canaanites, their destruction by the Israel- 
ites, 645. 

Calligraphy, its influence on Hebrew writing, 
16. 

Calmet's Dissertations qui peuvent servir 
de Prolegomenes de l'Ecriture Sainte, re- 
ferred to, 1053, 1054. 

Calvin's Commentary on Ephesians, quoted, 
485. 

Campbell's (Dr. G.) Preliminary Disserta- 
tions, referred to, 320. 

Cappellus, James, his Observationes in N. 
Test., edited by Lewis Cappellus, referred 
to, 362. 

Cappellus' s Arcanum Punctationum Revela- 
tum, 21. Critica Sacra, 39. Commen- 
tarii et Notas Critical in Vetus Testa- 
mentum, referred to, 1007. 1036. 1038. 

Carpzov's Introductio ad Libb. Bibl., re- 
ferred to, 824. 896. 983. 

Carson's Principles of Interpretation, quoted, 
479. 

Caspari's Beitrage zur Einleit. in das Buch 
Isaiah, referred to, 838. 846. Ueber Micha 
den Morasthiten, referred to, 962. 

Cellerier's Manuel d'Hermeneutique, quoted, 
298, 299. 313. 315, 316. 

Chalmers, quoted on Biblical Hermeneutics, 
208. 

Chayim (Jacob Ben), referred to, 42. 44. 

Chevallier's division of the types, 444, 445. 

Chinese Jews, their Hebrew MSS., 97. 

Christology of the Book of Daniel, 931. 

Chronicles, the Books of, originally one, 673. 
Titles of, ibid. 674. Divisions of, 674, 
675. Relation between them and other 
historical books of the O. T. canon, 675 — 
680. Scope of, 680. Sources of, 680— 
683. Age and author, 683, 684. Charges 
against, 684 — 687. One work with Ezra 
and Nehemiah, 687, 688. 

Chronology of the Old Testament, 342 — 345. 
Longer and shorter, 345. Considerations 
in favour of the shorter scheme, 345. 
Reasons for adopting the longer, 346— 
348. Peculiarities of Scripture chrono- 
logy occasioning difficulty, 348 — 350. 

Chrysostom, referred to, 3. 

Clarke (Dr. Adam), characterised as a Com- 
mentator, 383. 385. On the Eucharist, 
referred to, 691. 

Classification of quotations from the Old 
Testament in the New, according to their 
external form, by Randolph, 185. Ac- 
cording to their internal form, by Palfrey, 
195. 



Clement of Alexandria, his Stromata re- 
ferred to, 832. 

Clementine and Sixtine editions of the Vul- 
gate, 83, 84. 

Clinton's Fasti Hellenici, referred to; 343. 
346, 347, 348. 

Cobbin's Condensed Commentary, referred 
to, 382. 

Codices, celebrated Hebrew, 43. 

Coins, inscriptions, medals, their use in the 
interpretation of Scripture, 356, 357. 

Coleridge's Confessions of an Inquiring 
Spirit, quoted, 376. 

Commentaries, various kinds and utility of, 
377 — 382. Rules for using them, 382 — 
385. 

Complutensian Polyglott, 44. 62. 83. 

Congregational Magazine, quoted on the 
controversy respecting Solomon's Song, 
791, 792, 793. 797. 809. 

Conjugates, what ? 232. 

Context, the study of, 221. The immediate, 
221—227. The more remote, 227—231 . 
The examination of, 275 — 294. The 
abuse of, 294 — 296. 

Contradictory passages of Scripture, obser- 
vations on, 503 — 505. Principles for 
clearing itp, 505 — 509. Examples in 
the Old Testament examined, 509 — 528. 
Examples in the New Testament, 528 — 
549. Between tbe Old Testament and the 
New, 549. Between Scripture and the 
testimony of 'Heathen authors, 549 — 556. 

Conybeare and Howson's Epistles of Paul, 
referred to, 354. ; quoted, 483. 

Correctoria on the Latin Vulgate, 82, 83. 

Cosin's Scholastical History of the Canon 
of Holy Scripture, characterised, 1058. 

Cotelerius, his Patres Apostolici, referred to, 
832. 1052. 

Cotton's Five Books of the Maccabees, re- 
ferred to, 1053. 1056.; quoted, 1042. 

Credner's Beitrage zur Einleitung, referred 
to, 55. 182. 

Critical conjecture, its necessity and use, 
108 — 110. Its abuse, 110. 

Critical Interpretation, 211., &c. 

Criticism, textual or biblical, definition of, 
and object, 1, 2. Sources of, 46. 

Crystallization-hypothesis of Ewald re- 
specting the Pentateuch rejected, 632. 

Cush, 351. 

Cyprian, cited respecting the Apocrypha, 
1057. 



Djehnes Geschichtliche Darstellung der 
Judisch. Alexandrinische Religions, re- 
ferred to, 50. 364. 1017. 1030. 

Dahl's Chrestomathia Philoniana, referred 
to, 365. 

Dangler's Examen des Citations Messia- 
niques, 186. 

Daniel, the Prophet, historical notice of, 
905—908. 



1088 



Index III. — Subjects mid Authors. 



Daniel, the Book of, divisions, 908—910. 
The ten horns and the little horn of, 909. 
The four kingdoms of, ibid. 910. The 
fourth empire of, not the Roman, 911, 
912. Seventy weeks of, 9 1 3—9 1 5. Pro- 
phetic character of, 915. Unity of, 916. 
The Danielic authorship, reasons for, 917 
— 921. Arguments against, examined, 
922 — 934. Did Daniel put the book in 
its present form ? 934. Liberties taken 
by the Greek translator of, 935, 936. 
Apocryphal additions to, viz. the Song of 
the Three Children, 936, 937. History of 
Susannah, 937 — 939. History of Bel and 
the Dragon, 939. Time and place of 
these additions, 940. Their circulation 
among the Fathers, ibid. 941. 

Dathe's edition of Glassius'Philologia Sacra, 
referred to, 369. 397, &c. 

Davidson (D.) on Prophecy, quoted, 496- 

Davidson (Dr. Samuel), his Biblical Criti- 
cism quoted respecting the character of 
MSS., 102, 103. On the application of 
the sources of criticism, 112. His Sacred 
Hermeneutics, quoted on the mode of 
determining the signification of a word, 
266, 267. On the healing of blind Bar- 
timreus, 529, 530. His Ecclesiastical 
Polity of the New Testament, cited, 498. 
His introduction to the New Testament, 
referred to, 911. 

Delitzsch, Die Genesis ausgelegt, Einleitung 
referred to, 614. 630., &c. Symbolse ad 
Psalmos illustrandos isagogicse, 753. De 
Habacuci prophetaa Vita atque iEtate, 
referred to, 940. Der Prophet Habakuk, 
referred to, 967, 968. Geschichte der 
Judaischen Poesie, referred to, 1041. 

Demetrius (Phalereus), Librarian to Ptolemy 
Philadelphus, 47. 

De Sacy, referred to, 65, 66. 

De Sola, Lindenthal and Eaphall's Ge- 
nesis, referred to, 620. 

Deuteronomy, the Book of, Hebrew names, 
587. Jewish divisions of, 588. Mosaic 
authorship of, ibid. Division of the 
Mosaic legislation contained in, 589. 
Tables of arrangement of laws, 590 — 
593. Deviations and additions as com- 
pared with Exodus, Leviticus, and Num- 
bers, 608. Its historical stand-point, 
610, 611. 

De Wette's Einleitung, referred to, 23. 75., 
&c; quoted, 917. Exeget. Handbuch, 
291. Commentar iiber die Psalmen, 
quoted, 892. Uber die erbauliche Er- 
klarung der Psalmen, 766. 

Digressions in Scripture, 279. 

Diognetus, the epistle to, quoted, 368. 

Dillmann, referred to, 66. 

Divisions in the text of the Hebrew Bible, 
28—30. Of the Hebrew books, 30. 

Doctrinal interpretation of Scripture, 472. 
Three principles characterising the writers 
of the Scriptures, 473 — 475. Eules to be 
observed, 475 — 487. 



I Documentary hypothesis respecting the Pen- 
tateuch, 593 — 610. 
Doederlein and Meisner's Hebrew Bible, 44. 
Doepke's Hermeneutik, quoted, 193. 
Dom, De Psalterio iEthiopico, referred to, 

66. 
Doner's Entwickelungsgeschichte der Lehre 

von der Person Christi, referred to, 364. 
Drake's Notes on the Prophecies of Jonah 

and Hosea, quoted, 943. 956. 
Dreams, prophetic, 825. 
Drechsler, Die Einheit und Aechtheit der 

Genesis, referred to, 594. Der Prophet 

Isaia uebersetzt und erklaert, referred, to, 

837. 840., &c. 
Drusius, his Ben Siras Proverbia Latina, &c. , 

referred to, 1031. 
Durell's Critical Remarks on the books of 

Job, Proverbs, Psalms, &c, quoted, 767 

—768. 
Dutch versions of the Bible, 248. 



Eadie's Commentary on Ephesians, quoted, 
483. Article Hosea in Kitto's Cyclopae- 
dia of Biblical Literature, quoted, 942. 

Eagle with the twelve wings, &c., of Esdras ; 
its symbolic import, 994. 

Ebrard's Zeugniss gegen den Apocryphen, 
referred to, 1057. 

Edward's (Prof., B.B.), his view of the im- 
precatory psalms, quoted, 761. 

Edward's (Jonathan), view of original sin, 
referred to, 485. 

Ecclesiastes, the Book of, title, 781. Con- 
tents, 781, 782. Theme, 782, 783. Its 
deep ethical and religious philosophy, 
783. Obscurity of its plan and scope, 
783, 784 Charges against it examined, 
784 — 786. Reasons against its Solo- 
monic authorship, 786—789. Date, 789, 
790. Analogy to the wisdom of Solomon, 
790. Not quoted in the New Testament, 
ibid. 

Ecclesiasticus. See Wisdom of the Son of 
Sirach. 

Egypt, the river of, 351. 

Egyptian versions from the Septuagint, 66. 

Egyptian words in the Septuagint Penta- 
teuch, 49. 

Eichhorn's Einleitung in das A. T., referred 
to, 32. 64. 66. Einleitung in die Apokry- 
phischen Schriften, referred to, 937. 990. 
1052. Repertorium, 1046. 

Elohim, never denotes angels, 162. 

Elohistic and Jehovistic documents in the 
Pentateuch, 593—606. Writers, 623. 

Engelbreth, referred to, 67. 

English versions of the Bible, 248. 

Enoch, the Book of, quoted, 176. 

Epanorthota on the Vulgate, 82, 83. 

Epicureans, the, 356. 

Epiphanius, cited, 48. 369. 



Index III. — Subjects and Authors. 



1089 



Ephrem Syrus, his testimony respecting the 
Peshito Syriac version, 75. 

Erpenius's Arabic version, 78. 

Esdras, third Boob of (Eng. vers, first book); 
contents, 988. Peculiar phenomena as 
compared with the canonical writings of 
the same times and persons, 998, 999. 
Integrity considered, 989. Translator, 

990. Different versions of, ibid. Object, 
ibid. 

Esdras, fourth Book of (Eng. vers, second 
book) ; different names of, 990. Contents, 

991, 992. The Greek text from which 
the Latin was made, 993, 994. Age, 934. 
Eagle with twelve wings, and meaning of 
the symbol, 994. Later appendix to, ibid. 
A specimen of the later Jewish apocry- 
phal literature, 995. Regarded only by 
a few fanatics and mystics as authentic, 
ibid. 

Esther, the Book of, contents, 697, 698. 
Scope and time of the history, 698. Age 
and author, 698 — 700. Absence of the 
name of God, probable reasons of, 700, 
701. Historical character and credibility, 
701 — 703. Canonical authority, 703. 
Luther's opinion of, ibid. 

Esther, Apocryphal additions to the Book 
of, uot found in Hebrew or Chaldee, 
1010, 1011. Original language of, 1011. 
Original author, ibid. Numerous versions 
of, 1012. 

Ethiopic language, 26. 

Ethiopic versions from the LXX., 66. 

Etymology, its use in the interpretation of 
Scripture, 216, 217. 

Eusebius, quoted, 1060. 

Ewald's Die Poetischen Bucher des Alten 
Bundes, quoted or referred to, 425. 429. 
707. 738. 775. Geschichte des Volkes 
Israel, referred to, 609. 1002., &c. Aus- 
fuhrliches Lehrbuch der Hebraischen 
Sprache, referred to, 9. 759. Die Pro- 
pheten des Alten Bundes, referred to, 809. 
845. 944., &c. 

Exegesis, its nature, 282. Limitations and 
cautions respecting the exegesis of the 
Bible, 371—376. 

Exodus, the book cf, its title, 578. Divi- 
sions, 579. Plagues on Egypt which it 
records, 580. Period of the Exodus, 
580,581. Suppot. "" mythic elements, 581. 

Ezekiel, the prophet, historical notices of 
him, 893, 894. Character, 898. 

Ezekiel, the Book of, divisions, 894, 895. Au- 
thenticity, 895. 897. Manner in which it 
was made up, 897. Masoretic text of it not 
pure, 897, 898. Character of, 898. 899. 
Style, 899 — 901. Messianic prophecies, 
901—903. Gog and Magog, 901. In- 
terpretation of the last nine chapters, 903 
—905. 

Ezra, the Book of, originally included Ne- 

hemiah, 688. Divisions, 688, 689. Unity 

and independence, 689, 690. Authorship, 

690, 691. Chronology, 691. Passage 

VOL. II. 4 



from Justin Martyr, 
from, 691. 



taken 



Faber's Prolusiones VI. super librum Sa- 
pientise, referred to, 1017. 

Faber's (Bev. G. Stanley) Dissertation on 
the Prophecies, referred to, 470, 471. 

Fabricius's Codex Pseudepigraphus, referred 
to, 574. Liber Tobias, Judith, &c, 1002. 
Libri Apocryphi Sirach, &c, referred to, 
1040. 

Fairbairn's Typology of Scripture, referred 
to or quoted, 441. 444. 466. 

Fathers, the Greek, use of their writings 
as an aid in the interpretation of Scrip- 
ture, 366. 370. 

Figurative language of Scripture, its inter- 
pretation, 385 — 391. How determined, 
391 — 395. Metonymies, 395 — 398. Me- 
taphors, 398 — 402. Anthropopathy and 
personification, 403 — 405. Allegory, 405 
— 411. 

Fish, the great, of Jonah, 958. 

Forbes's Metrical Structure of Scripture, 
quoted, 431. 

Formulas of quotation in the New Testa- 
ment, 176 — 180. 

Francke's Guide to the Beading of the Scrip- 
tures, quoted, 561. 566, 567. 

Frankel, Ueber den Einfiuss der Palestin. 
Exegese auf die Alexandrinische Hcrme- 
neutik, referred to, 37. 50, 51. 53. 71. His 
Vorstudien zu der Septuaginta, referred 
to, 50. 363. Einiges zu den Targumim, 
referred to, 73. 

Eraser's Scripture Doctrine of Sanctifica- 
tion, quoted, 296. 

Eraser's, Key to the Prophecies, 469. 

Friedrichsen's Kritische Uebersicht der Ver- 
schiedenen Ansichten referred to, 959. 

Fritzsche's Exeget. Handbuch zu den Apo- 
kryphen, referred to, 52. 918. 937., &c. 

Froude on the Book of Job, quoted, 717. 

Frumentius, author of the Ethiopic version 
from the LXX., 66. 

Fuller's (Andrew) works, referred to, 498. 

Furst, referred to, 3. 



Gabelextz and Loebes edition of the Frag- 
ments of the Gothic Version, 68. 
Genesis, the Book of ; meaning of the title, 

574. Divisions, 5 74, 575. Chronology of, 9. 

575. Subjects of the first three chapters 
remarked on, 576—578. When written, 
578. 

Genuineness of the Pentateuch, 593, &c. 
Documentary hypothesis, 593. Discrepan- 
cies and different accounts of the same 
occurrences, 595. 603. Different traditions 
respecting the same occurrences, 603 — 
607. Diversity of usus loquendi, 607 — 6 1 1. 
Unity of, 611—613. Positive proofs of 
A 



1090 



Index III. — Subjects and Authors. 



the Mosaic authorship, 613 — 618. Proofs 
that the whole Pentateuch did not proceed 
from Moses, 718—625. Proofsof the early 
date of the Pentateuch, 625 — 630. These 
proofs examined, 630 — 632. Crystalliza- 
tion-hypothesis, ibid. General conclusion 
respecting the Pentateuch, 632, 633. 
Genuineness of Isaiah, chapters xiii. and 
xiv., 839, &c. Of chapter xv., 841, &c. 
Of chapter xxiii., 843, &c. Of chapters 
xxiv. — xxvii., 844, &c. Of chapters xxxiv. 
and xxxv. 846, &c. Of the later prophe- 
cies, viz. xl. — Ixvi., 849 — 862. 

Genuineness of Daniel, 915 — 934. 
Genuineness of Zechariah, 978 — 983. 

Geography of Scripture viewed as a helplo 
an acquaintance with the Bible, 350. 

Geology, a knowledge of, useful in the inter- 
pretation of the Scriptures, 358. 

German versions of the Bible, 247. 

Georgian version, from the LXX., 67. 

Gerard's Institutes of Biblical Criticism, 
quoted, 319. Referred to, 504. 

Gesenius's Geschichte der Hebr. Sprache und 
Schrift, referred to, 3. 7. 22. &c. He- 
braische Grammatik, referred to, 9. 11. 
Sources of Hebrew philology and lexico- 
graphy, referred to, 23. Monumenta Phe- 
nicia, 18. De Pentateuchi Samaritani 
Origine, Indole, et Auctoritate, quoted, 
36. Commentar ueber den Iesaia, re- 
ferred to, 51. 835. 858. &c. Thesaurus 
Ling. Hebr. et Chald., appealed to, 371. 
Lexicon Manuale, quoted, 741. Prefixed 
Dissertation to his Lex. Man., quoted, on 
the character of Jewish commentators, 
249. 250. 

Gfrorer's Philo und die Judisch-Alexandri- 
nische Theosophie, referred to, 364. 1017. 
1030. Das Jahrhundert des Heils, referred 
to, 994. 

Ghislerius's Catena, referred to, 1037. 

Giles's Hebrew Records, referred to, 620. 

Gitagovinda, the Hindoo poem so called, re- 
ferred to, 803. 

Glassii, Philologia Sacra, referred to, 507, 
508, &c. 

Gleig's Stackhouse's History of the Bible, 
quoted, 798. 

Glossaries, their nature and use, 252, 253. 

Gold and Silver ages of the Hebrew lan- 
guage, 10, 11. 

Good's Commentary on Job, referred to, 
710. His Song of Songs, 806. 

Gothic version from the LXX., 68. 

Grabe's edition of the Septuagint, 23. 

Graetz's Geschichte der Juden, referred to, 
17. 71. 

Graf, De Librorum Samuelis et Regum 
compositione, referred to, 670. 

Gramberg's Geschichte Religionsideen, re- 
ferred to, 897. 

Grammatical interpretation, 211 — 213. Ex- 
ternal sources of, 239. 

Graves's Lectures on the Pentateuch, quoted, 
619. 



Gray's Key to the Old Testament, referred 
to, 573. 

Greswell's Harmonia Evangelica, quoted, 
308. 544. 

Grimm's Commentar. iiber das Buch Wei- 
sheit, referred to, 1014. Exeget. Hand- 
buch in den Apocryphen, referred to, 
1042, 1043. 

Grinfield's view of the Roman edition of the 
Septuagint, 62. 

Grossmann's Qusestiones Philonese, referred 
to, 364. 

Grotius's Prolegomena in librum Judith, re- 
ferred to, 1009. Adnotationes in Vetus 
Testamentum, 1014. 



Habakkuk, the prophet, traditions respect- 
ing, 966, 967. The period in which he 
lived, 967. The book of, its dramatic 
form, 698. Manner and style, 969. 

Hagada, explanation of, 72. 

Haggai, the prophet, historical notice of, 972. 
The book of, contains four prophecies, 
972, 973. Addressed to the civil governor, 
Zerubbabel, 973. Character of its views, 
ibid. Style and manner, 974. "The de- 
sire of all nations " — what ? ibid. 

Hafiz, a Persian poet, his Songs, quoted, 
793. 

Halacha, explanation of, 72. 

Haldane's Exposition of the Romans, quoted, 
306. 

Hales's Chronology, referred to, 43. 54. 66. 
901. 913. &c. 

Hallische Literatur-Zeitung, referred to, 
965. 

Hare's Vindication of Luther, quoted, 703. 

Harklean version of the History of Susan- 
nah, 66. 

Harmony of Scripture, remarks on the, 503 
—505. Principles of, 505—509. Appli- 
cation of these principles to a variety of 
passages, 509 — 556. 

Hasse's Die "Weisheit Salomo's, referred to, 
1016. 

Hdvernick's Einleitung, referred to, 17. 18. 
66. 72. 573 , &c. Article Genesis in 
Kitto's Cyc. of Bib. Lit., quoted, 578, 579. 
Commentar ueber Ezechiel, referred to, 
893. Neue Kritische Untersuchungen 
ueber das Buch Daniel, referred to, 907. 
919. De libro Baruchi apocrypho com- 
mentatio critica, referred to, 1036. 

Hebrew, derivation and meaning of the 
word, 2, 3. First application of the name 
to the Jewish tongue, 3. 

Hebrew language, a branch of the Shemitic, 
4. Grammatical relation, 6, 7. Substan- 
tially the same as the Canaanitish, Phoe- 
nician, and Punic, 7. Did Abraham 
bring it into Canaan? 8. Was it the 
primitive language of man ? 8, 9. Com- 
pared with the Arabic, 9. Dialects of, ibid. 
10. Periods of, called gold and silver 



Index III. — Subjects and Authors. 



1091 



ages, 10, 11. When it ceased to be spoken, 
11, 12. Studied by the Jews when a 
dead language, 12. New or Rabbinical 
dialect of, 13. How to acquire a know- 
ledge of it, 23. 

Hebrew characters, 14. Variety, antiquity, 
and derivation, 14 — 18. 

Hebrew vowel points, development of the 
system of, 18, 19. Late origin of, 20. 
Notice of the controversy relating to, 21. 

Hebrew accents, 22, 23. 

Hebrew manuscripts, 88. Synagogue rolls, 
ibid. 90. Private MSS. in square charac- 
ters, 90 — 92. Age of, how determined, 92 
— 94. Marks of Spanish and of German, 

94. How to determine the country of, 
ibid. 95 How to judge of the value of, 

95, 96. Private MSS. in Rabbinical cha- 
racters, 97. Some of the oldest described, 
98—102. Observations on, 102, 103. 

Hebrew Bible, printed editions of the, 44, 45. 

Heiligstedt's Commentarius in Jobum, re- 
ferred to, 730. 

Henderson's (Dr.) Divine Inspiration, cited, 
827. Prophet Isaiah, referred to, 842. 
Jeremiah and Lamentations, cited, 886. 
893. Prophet Ezekiel, 902—904. 

Hengstenberg, Die Authentic des Penta- 
teuches, referred to, 34. 512. 594. 601. 
&c. Commentary on the Psalms, referred 
to, 293. 738. Quoted, 836. 858. 1042. 
Christologie, referred to, 452. 877. 948. 
&c. Egypt and the Books of Moses, 580. 
Die Authentic des Daniel, referred to, 906. 
920. 922. &c. 

Henke's Museum, referred to, 993. 

Henrifs (Matthew) Commentary, cited, 562. 
564. 

Herbst's Einleitung, referred to, 17. 49. 934. 
1043. 

Herder's Spirit of Poetry, quoted in rela- 
tion to the author of the Book of Job, 732, 
733. 

Hermeneutics, what ? 202. Principles of, 
207—211. 

Herodotus, quoted, 920. 971. 

Herzfeld's Koheleth iibersetzt und erlautert, 
787. 

Herzog's Encyklopredie, referred to, 43. 54. 
66. 901. 913. &c. 

Hesychius, referred to, 62. 

Hexapla of Origen, described, 57 — 62. 

Hexaplaric-Syriac Version, 65. 

Hey's Lectures on Divinity, quoted, 568. 

Hillel, Codex, 43. 

Himyaric dialect of the Arabic, 26. 

HirzeVs Commentary on Job, referred to, 
372. 717. &c. De Chaldaismi Biblici ori- 
gine et auctoritate critica, referred to, 857. 

Historical circumstances, their use in the in- 
terpretation of Scripture, 321. Who ? or 
the writer, 322—324; or speaker," 324 — 
327 ; or the party addressed, 327 — 329. 
What ? or the nature of the writing, 329 
— 333. Where r the place where the 
book was written or the thing said or 
4a 



done, 333—335. By what means? 335. 
How ? or the mode in which a thing is 
done, 335—337. When, or the time and 
occasion of a composition, 337 — 339. 

History, profane and ecclesiastical, its use 
in the interpretation of Scripture, 340. 

Hitzig's Die zwolf kleinen Propheten erklart, 
referred to, 230. 966. Das Hohe Lied 
erklart, referred to, 798. Des Propheten 
Jonas Orakel ueber Moab, referred to, 
841. Der Prophet Jeremia erklart, re- 
ferred to, 870, 871. &c. Die Psalmen, 
referred to, 918. 1027. Das Buch Daniel 
erklart, referred to, 923. 

Hody, De Bibliorum textibus originalibus, 
referred to, 47. 

Hofmann's Weissagung und Erfullung, re- 
ferred to, 454. 864. 913, &c. Die Siebzig 
Jahre des Jeremias, referred to, 907. 
926. 

Hoffmann's Das Buch Henoch, referred to, 
176._ 

Holden's Christian Expositor, quoted, 759. 
Translation of the Proverbs of Solomon, 
referred to, 779, 780. Book of Ecclesi- 
astes, cited, 786. 788. 

Holmes' and Parsons's edition of the Sep- 
tuagint, 63. 

Homilies, 37. 39. 

Horn, the little, of Daniel, 909. 

Horns, the ten, of Daniel, 909. The four of 
Zechariah, 976. 

Hosea (the prophet), historical notice of, 

941. Time of his prophetic course, 941, 

942. 944. 

Hosea, the Book of, superscription, 942. 
Contents, ibid. Nature and meaning of 
the transactions recorded in the first and 
second chapters, ibid. — 944. Second divi- 
sion of the book, ibid. Arranged by the 
author, ibid. Place where written, ibid. 
Style and peculiarity, 945, 946. Quota- 
tion from, in the New Testament, 946. 

Houbigant's Prolegomena in Not. crit. in 
omnes V. T. libros, referred to, 1013. 

Huet's Origeniana, referred to, 61. Demon- 
strate Evangelica, referred to, 1043. 

Humphry's Commentary on the Acts of 
the Apostles, referred to, 563. 

Hungarian versions of the Bible, 248. 

Hupfeld's Ausfuhrliche Hebraische Gram- 
matik, referred to, 4, 5. 7. &c. Beleuch- 
tung dunkler Stellen der Altestestament- 
lichen Textgeschichte, referred to, 16, 
17. Die Quellen der Genesis, 595. Die 
Psalmen, 738. 

Hutter's Hamburgh Hebrew Bible, 44. 



Idioms of the Hebrew language, 217 — 219. 

Hgen's Die Geschichte Tobi's nach drey 
verschiedenen Originalen, dem Grie- 
chischen, dem Lateinischen des Hierony- 
mus, einem Syrischen, &c., referred to, 
997. 



1092 



Index III. — Subjects and Authors. 



Imprecatory Psalms, various modes of inter- 
preting, 758—768. 

Indo- Germanic language, its affinity to the 
Shemitic, 8. 

Interpretation, general principles of, 207 — 
211. 

Interpreter of Scripture, the qualifications 
of, 202—207. 

Irony employed in Scripture, 220. 

Isaiah (the prophet), notices of, 835, 836. 

Isaiah, the Book of, its arrangement, 836. 
Divisions, 837. Contents of first part de- 
scribed, and genuineness vindicated, 837 
— 849. Later prophecies, arguments 
against their genuineness stated, 849 — 
853 ; these arguments examined, 853 — 
858. Arguments for the genuineness: 
external, 859, 860 ; internal, 860—862. 
Divisions of later prophecies, 826. The 
servant of Jehovah described in them, 
various opinions of, 863 — 866. Unity of 
the whole book, 866. Quality of the 
prophecies, 867, 868. 
Italian versions of the Bible, 247. 



Jam's Hebrew Bible, 44. Einleitung, re- 
ferred to, 860. 963. 974, &c. Enchiridion 
Hermeneuticse generalis, referred to, 974. 

Jahrbiicher der biblischen Wissenschaft, by 
Ewald, 21. 

James' (Thomas), Bellum Papale, quoted, 
84. 

Japhetic or Indo-Germanic language, 4. 
Its affinity to the Shemitic, 8. 

Jebb's Sacred Literature, quoted, 958. 

Jehovistic and Elohistic documents in the 
Pentateuch, 593 — 606. The writers of, 
623. 

Jeremiah (the prophet), historical notice of, 
868—870. 

Jeremiah, the Book of, divisions, 870 — 875. 
Chronology of the prophecies, 875. Sup- 
posed interpolations examined, 875 — 880. 
Different arrangement of the prophecies 
in the Hebrew and the Septuagint, 880, 
881. "Variations between the Masoretic 
recension and the text of the Septuagint, 
881 — 883. Origin of the collection of 
Jeremiah's prophecies, 884. Arrange- 
ment of, ibid. 885. Where written, 885. 
Messianic predictions, ibid. Style, ibid. 
Symbolic imagery, 886. 

Jeremy, the Epistle of, 1038, 1039. 

Jericho, Codex, 43. 

Jerome, quoted on the supposed falsification 
of the Scriptures by the Jews, 32. Epist. 
ad Marcellam, 56. Prsefat. in Josua, 64. 
Amends the Versio Vetus, ibid. 65. Exe- 
cutes the Vulgate version, 80, 81 ; is 
censured for it, 81. Adversus Jovinian. 
referred to, 870. Quoted respecting 
Ezekiel, 899. Quoted respecting the apo- 
cryphal additions to Daniel, 940. Prooem. 



ad Amos, quoted, 952. 983. Prsef. ad 
lib. Judith, quoted, 1007. 
Jerusalem Tar gum, 73. 
Jewish Writings, their use in the interpre- 
tation of Scripture : — The apocryphal 
books, 359. The Talmud, 360, 361. 
The writers of Rabboth, &c, and book 
Sohar, 361. Authors who have applied 
their writings to the interpretation of 
Scripture, 362. Cautions on the subject, 
ibid. 363. Philo, 363—365. Josephus, 
365, 366. 
Jews, did they falsify the Scriptures? 32. 
Job, the Book of, its contents, 704 — 707. 
Its substance and form, 707 — 709. Cor- 
rect view of, 709, 710. Structure, 710, 
711. Theme, 7 1 2—7 14 ; how the theme 
is developed, 714 — 716. Vindication of 
Elihu, 716, 717. Incorrect views of the 
purport of the book, 717 — 720. Unity 
and integrity of, 720. Genuineness of 
Elihu's discourses defended, and objec- 
tions answered, 722—725. Age in which 
Job lived, 725, 726. Pre-Mosaic age 
of the book, 726. Mosaic, ibid. Exile 
period, 728, 729. Time of Solomon, 729 
— 731. Time of Isaiah, 731. The pro- 
bable view, ibid. The author unknown, 
731 — 733. Examination of ch. xix. 25 — 
29., 733—736. 
Joel (the prophet), little known of him, 946. 

Time when he lived, 946 — 948. 
Joel, the Book of, occasion of the prophecy, 
948. Is the description of the locusts to 
be taken literally or tropically ? ibid. 949. 
Has the prophecy a double sense ? 949. 
Messianic prophecies, 949. Style, ibid. 
950. 
Jonah, the Book of the Prophet, divisions, 
956. Hypotheses respecting its contents: 
first, that the narrative is literal, 956, 957; 
secondly, that it is fictitious, 957; thirdly, 
that it is a prophetic tradition, poetically 
elaborated, ibid. 958. Some objections to 
its literality unfounded, 958. Circum- 
stances which militate against its exact 
literality, ibid. 959. Scope, 959. By 
whom, and when, written, ibid. Unity, 
960. Different from the prophetic books, 
ibid. Was Jonah a type of Christ ? ibid. 
Jonathan Ben Uzziel, who ? 71. The Tar- 
gum of, 72. 
Jonathan (the pseudo), 72. 
Jones (Sir William), his opinion of Hindoo 

amatory poetry, 803. 
Josephus, his Antiquities referred to, 47. 
926 ; quoted, 896. 918. 989. Contra 
Apion. 907. His writings as an aid to 
the elucidation of Scripture, 395. 
Joshua, the Book of, divisions, 633, 634. 
Object of, 634. Discrepancies in, 635. 
Diversity of usus loquendi, 638. Unity, 
639, 640. Authorship, arguments for 
Joshua himself, 640 ; against, ibid. 641. 
Date, 641, 642. Did the writer make 
use of the Pentateuch? 643. Was it 



Index III. — Subjects and Authors. 



1093 



written after the Book of Judges ? 644. 
Historical character and credibility, ibid, 
645. Samaritan books bearing the title, 

645, 646. 

Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology, 

referred to, 1016. 
Judges of Israel, then number, 646. 
Judges, the Book of, derivation of the name, 

646. Divisions of, ibid. Object and 
unity, 647. The appendix to, 648. Au- 
thorship, sources, and age, 649. Chro- 
nology, 650. Picture it presents of the 
rude state of the nation, 651, 652. Au- 
thenticity, 652. 

Judith, the book of, history it contains, 
1004—1006. Several texts of, 1006, 
1007. Not historical, 1007—1009. Time 
of its composition, 1009, 1010. Eejected 
by the Jews, 1010. 

Justin Martyr's Cohortatio ad Grascos, 
quoted, 47, 48. Dialogue with Trypho, 
quoted, 691. 

Justiniani's Polyglott Psalter, 68. 

Juynboll, referred to, 79. 



Kaliscr, his Historical and Critical Com- 
mentary on Exodus, cited, 579. 581. 

Kalkar's Lamentationes critice et exegetice 
illustrate, referred to, 887. 

Karkaphensian recension of the Peshito- 
Syriac version, 76, 77. 

Keach on the Metaphors, quoted, 420. 442, 
443. 

KeerVs Die Apokryphen des A. T. and die 
Apokryphenfrage mit Berucksichtigung 
&c, referred to, 1058. 

KeiVs Lehrbuch der Historisch-Kritischen 
Einleit., referred to, 7. 34. 77. 573., &c; 
quoted, 636. Continental- ueber das Buch 
Josua, 641. Apologetischer Versuch iiber 
die Biicher der Chronik, 676. 

Kennicott, referred to, 43, 44, 45. 56. Cited, 
57. 103. 514. 1042, Dissertatio generalis, 
referred to, 721. Remarks on Select Pas- 
sages of Scripture, referred to, 725. 

Kings, the books of, originally one, 665. 
Names of, ibid, Divisions, 665, 666. Scope, 
666. Unity, 666 — 668. Discrepancies, 
668 — 670. Time of composition and au- 
thorship, 670, 671. Sources, 671 — 673. 

Kirchhofer's Quellensammlung, &c., referred 
to, 1003. 

Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature, 
quoted, 577, 578. 641. 775. 836. 858. 942. 
1042. 
Kleinerfs Ueber die Echtheit sammtlicher 
in dem Bitche Jesaia enthaltenen Weissa- 
gungen, referred to, 859. 861., &c. 
Kluge's Essay on the Apocrypha, referred 

to, 1058. 
Knapp's Recensus Locorum Veteris Testa- 

menti in Novo, referred to, 201. 
Knobel's Die Genesis erklart, referred to, 595. 
De Carminis Jobi argum. fin. et disposi- 
4 



tione, referred to, 721. Commentar iiber 
das Buch Koheleth, referred to, 784. 
Prophetismus, referred to, 817. 941 Dei- 
Prophet Isaia erklart, referred to, 838. 
Quoted, 849—853. 

Kopp's Bilder und Schriften der Vorzeit, 
referred to, 16. 

Koenig's Alttestament. Studien, referred to, 
609. 

Koesters view of the parallelism of Hebrew 
poetry, cited, 429. Das Buch Hiob, re- 
ferred to, 711. Die Propheten des alten 
und neuen Testaments, referred to, 810. 

Korah and his company, their destruc- 
tion, 605. 

Koreiskite dialect of the Arabic, 26. 

Kreiger's Beitrage zur Kritik und Exegese, 
referred to, 176. 

Kueper's Jeremias librorum Sacrorum in- 
terpres atque vindex, referred to, 840. 
860. 968., &c. 

Kurtz's Beitrage zur Verthedigung, referred 
to, 954. 



La Croze, referred to, 67. 

Lamentations of Jeremiah, Hebrew name, 
886. When composed, 886, 887. Con- 
sist of five poems or elegies, 887, 888. 
Connection between these, 888. Their 
form, 888, 889. Their Jeremiah-au- 
thorship, 889—892. Style, 892. Posi- 
tion in the Septuagint and Hebrew Bible, 
892, 893. 

Lane's Manners and Customs of the Modern 
Egyptians, quoted, 793, 794. 

Language of the Old Testament, 2 — 14. 

Languages, the analogy of, as a source of 
interpretations, 253 — 267. 

Language, figurative, of Scripture, the inter- 
pretation of, 385 — 41 1. 

Larger Catechism, quoted, 480. 

Later prophecies of Isaiah, their genuineness: 
arguments against, examined, 849 — 853. 
Arguments for, 853—863. 

Latin Versions of the Bible, 63 — 65. 80— 
85. As a source of interpretation, 245, 
246. 

Laurence's Book of Enoch, quoted, 176. 
Primi Ezrae libri versio Aethiopica, re- 
ferred to, 994. 

Laureti Sylva Allegoriamm, referred to, 
441. 443. 

Layard's Ancient Nineveh and its Remains, 
referred to, 341. 

Lee's Prolegomena in Biblia Polyglotta, 
referred to, 53. 

Lengerke's Kenaan, referred to, 609. 621 
Das Buch Daniel verdeutscht und ausge- 
legt, referred to, 919. 

Leusden's Philologus Hebraeus, referred to, 
573. 

Leviticus, the book of, divisions, 581, 582. 
Spiritual meaning, 582. Time it occupies, 
ib. Remarkable prophecy, ib. 
A 3 



04 



Index III. — Subjects and Authors. 



Lindas Uebersetzung des Buches Jesus Si- 

rachs Sohn, referred to, 1026. 
Lisco, on the Parables, quoted, 422. 
Locke, John, quoted, on the division of 

Paul's Epistles into chapters, 228. On 

reason as natural revelation, 484, 485. 
Lonzano's (R. Menahem de) Hebrew Bible, 

44. 
Lorsbach, referred to, 80. 
Lot, the use of the, 825. 
Lowth's (Bp.) Commentary on Isaiah, 

quoted, 263. Sacred Poetry of the He- 
brews, quoted, 399. 402. 404. 868. 888. 

892. 900. 945. 952. 1028. 
Lucian, presbyter of Antioch, referred to, 

61. 
Lucke's Versuch einer vollstandigen Ein- 

leitung in die Offenbarung des Johannes, 

referred to, 176. 993. Commentary on 

John, referred to, 325. 
Luthardfs Das Johanneische Evangelium, 

referred to, 487. 
Luther's opinion of the book of Esther, 

quoted, 703. 
Lutzs Biblische Hermeneutik, referred to, 

437, 450, &c. 
Luzzatto's (S. D.) Philoxenus, referred to, 

71. 
Lyall's Preparation of Prophecy, quoted, 

361. 



Maccabees, the first book of, import of title, 
1041. Contents, ib. Style, 1041, 1042. 
Original language, 1042. Translator and 
original author, 1043. Time when the 
author lived, ib. Character and tone of 
the book, 1044. Historical value, 1045. 
Versions, 1046. How regarded by Jo- 
sephus and the Fathers, ib. Placed in 
the canon by the Council of Trent, ib. 

Maccabees, second book of, its contents, 
1047. Errors, 1047 — 1049. Inferior to 
the first book, and fabulous, 1048, 1049. 
The epitomising of, 1050. Original lan- 
guage, ib. Versions, 1050, 1051. Not 
referred to by Philo nor Josephus, 1051. 
Eirst clear traces of, ib. Never received 
by the Jews into the canon, ib. 

Maccabees, third book of, title improper, 
1051. Contents, ib. An absurd Jewish 
fable, 1051, 1052. Object, author, and 
first traces of, 1052, 1053. Versions of, 
1053. 

Maccabees, fourth book of ; real fourth book 
identified, 1053, 1054. Author, style, 
age, &c, 1054, 1055. 

Maccabees, fifth book of, object and cha- 
racter, 1055. Original language, 1056. 
Along with the third and fourth impro- 
perly called Books of Maccabees, 1056. 

Macknight, quoted, 441. 492. 

Magee, on the Atonement, referred to, 725. 

Magi of Babylon, Daniel's relation to the, 
928. 



Mai, (Angelo) his Nova Collectio Scrip- 
torum Vet., referred to, 64. 68. Spici- 
legium Eomanum, 1046. 

Malachi, the prophet, meaning of the name, 
984. Time of, 984, 985. Traditions re- 
specting, 985. Last of the prophets, 
986. 

Malachi, the book of, divisions, 985. Re- 
lation of to the oral teachings of the pro- 
phet, 986. Eorm and canonical autho- 
rity, ib. 

Malou's La Lecture de la Sainte Bible en 
Langue Vulgaire, referred to, 1058. 

Mairnonides' Moreh Nevochim, referred to, 
824. 

Manasses, the prayer of, character, contents, 
&c, 1039—1041. 

Mar (Abba), Nestorian patriarch, his Sy- 
riac version from the LXX., 66. 

Marsh, (Bp.) quoted on Allegory, 405,406. 

Maschil, meaning of the term, 740. 

Masius, (Andrew) referred to, 65. 

Masorah, what, 13. 40, 41. Value of, 42. 
Use, 107, 108. 

Masoretes, who so called, 13. Their la- 
bours, 40. 

Maurefs Commentarius Gram. Crit.in Vetus 
Testamentum, referred to, 377. 

Maurice's History of Hindostan, referred to, 
577. 

Mc CleUand's Manual of Interpretation, 
quoted, 291. 

Mede's Works, quoted, 981. 

Medicine, a knowledge of, useful to the in- 
terpreter of Scripture, 358. 

Meier in the Studien und Kritiken, referred 
to, 861. 

Melchites, the, 68. 

Memphitic version from the LXX., 67. 

Metaphors, occurring in Scripture, the in- 
terpretation of, 399 — 403. 

Metonymies occurring in Scripture, the in- 
terpretation of, 395 — 398. 

Meyer's Commentary on 1st Corinthians, 
referred to, 259. 

MiaWs Bases of Belief, quoted, 375, 

Micah, the book of the prophet, the inscrip- 
tion of, 961. Divisions, 961, 962. When 
written, 962. Predictions of, 962, 963. 
Style, 963. 

Michaelis'' (J. H.) edition of the Hebrew 
Bible, 44. 

Michaelis 1 (J. D.) Notes to Lowth's Lec- 
tures on the Poetry of the Hebrews, 
quoted, 400. 969. Commentaries on the 
Laws of Moses, 599. Einleitung, referred 
to, 573. Kritisches Collegium, referred 
to, 749. 

Michtam, meaning of the term, 740. 

Midrash, what, 72. Midrash Coheleth, 784. 

Mingarelli, referred to, 67. 

Miracles of the Book of Daniel examined, 

929. 
Mishna and Gemaras, quoted, 39. Their 
use in the interpretation of Scripture, 
360—363. 



Index III. — Subjects and Authors. 



1095 



Mishna, De Sola's Eighteen Treatises from, 
quoted, 796. 

Mistakes in the text of the Hebrew Bible, 
31. 

Modern versions of the Bible, as a source of 
interpretation, 243 — 249. 

Moral interpretation of Scripture, 487., &c. 
Nature of the moral parts of Scripture, 
487 — -J 89. Observations on, 789 — 796. 
Moral examples, observations on, 796 — 
799. 

Morus, his Acroases referred to, 363. 406. 
408. 

Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, in- 
ternal evidence of, 613 — 616. External, 
616—618. Evidences that all did not 
proceed from Moses, 618 — 622. 

Moses Bar Cepha, referred to, 66. 

Moses of Aghelli, in Mesopotamia, referred 
to, 66. 

Movers, De Utriusque recensionis Vaticinio- 
rum Jeremiad Grnecre Alexandrinse et 
Hebraica? Masoretica? indole, referred to, 
51. 875. Kritische Untersuchungen, re- 
ferred to, 691. 

MSS., Hebrew, celebrated exemplars of, 43. 
Synagogue Rolls, 88 — 90. Private, in 
square characters, 90 — 92. Rules for 
determining their age, 92, 93. Marks of 
Spanish and German, 94. Probable evi- 
dence of the country of, ibid. 95. How 
to judge of their worth, 95 — 99. Private, 
in Rabbinical characters, 97. Some of the 
most ancient described, 98 — 102. Ob- 
servations on, 102, 103. 

Muenscher, quoted on the interpretation of 
typical actions, 447. 

Miinster (Sebastian), editor of the Soncino 
Hebrew Bible, 44. 

Miinter's Specimen Versiouum Danielis, re- 
ferred to, 67. 



Nagel's Dissertatio de Cod. Biblioth. No- 

rimberg referred to, 1 08. 
Ndgelsbach's Articles on Ezra and Nehemiah 

in Herzog's Encyklopaedie, referred to, 

695, 696. 
Nahum, the prophet, birthplace and time of 

his prophecies, 964, 965. 
JYahum, the Book of, one continuous oracle, 

965. Inscription, ibid. 966. Style and 

diction, 966. 
Naphtali (R. Jacob Ben), his Collection of 

Eastern and Western MSS., referred to, 

42. 
Natural History, its use in the interpreta- 
tion of Scripture, 358. 
Neander's Geschichte der Pfianzung &c, 

referred to, 307. 
Nehemiah, the Book of, originally part of 

Ezra, 692. Divisions, ibid. Authorship, 

692 — 695. From the same author as 

Ezra, 695—697. Union of with Ezra, 

697. Chronoloev, ibid* 

4 A 



Newman's Phases of Faith, quoted, 379. 

Newton's Dissertations on the Prophecies, 
referred to, 911. 

Niches DeVeteris Testamenti codicum Grse- 
corum familiis dissertatio, 1007. 

Nitzsch, referred to, 1023. Ueber die apo- 
kryphen des A. T. und das sogenannte 
Christliche im Buche der Weisheit, re- 
ferred to, 1058. 

Nordheimer's Hebrew Grammar, quoted, 759. 

Norzi's Jed. Salom., Hebrew Bible, 44. 

Noyes' Translation of the Book of Job, re- 
ferred to, 240. 712., &c. Translation of 
the Psalms, quoted, 756, 757. Translation 
of Proverbs, referred to, 779. Translation 
of the Prophets, quoted, 892. 

Numbering of the Israelites, 585. Table of 
the, 586. 

Numbers, the Book of, why so called, 583. 
General divisions, ibid. 584. History of 
584., &c. 



Obabiah, the Prophet, historical notice of, 
953, 954. Age in which he lived, 954, 
955. 

Obadiah, the Book of, division, 955. Accom- 
plishment of the prophecy, ibid. Style, 
ibid. 

Oehler's Prolegomena zur Theologie des 
A It en Testaments, referred to, 809. 

Olshausen's Opuscula, referred to, 238. Bib- 
lischer Commentar, quoted, 418. 

Olshausen, J., Die Psalmeu erkliirt, referred 
to, 741. 

Onkelos, who, 70. His Targum, 71. 

Opinions, the religious, of the people men- 
tioned in Scripture, a knowledge of, use- 
ful in interpretation of Scripture, 354, 
355. 

Origen's Hexapla and Tetrapla, 58 — 62. 
Tlepi hpxoov, referred to, 574. 1046. Epis- 
tola ad African., referred to, 1012. Apud 
Euseb., referred to, 1042. 

Otto's Justini Martyris Opera, quoted, 691. 

Owen's (Dr. H), Observations on the Sep- 
tuagint, referred to, 57. 



Pagan Writers, their supposed utility in 
illustrating the Scriptures, 263, 264. 

Pagninus' Version of the Bible, 246. 

Paley's Moral and Political Philosophy, re- 
ferred to, 49. 

Palfrey's Relation between Christianity and 
Judaism, quoted, 189, 190. Classification 
of quotations in the New Testament, 195. 

Palmyrene inscriptions, 17. 

Parables, their nature, 411. Use and ex- 
cellence, 411 — 413. Extremes in the in- 
terpretation of, 413 — 416. Canons for 
interpreting, 417 — 423. 

Parallelism of Hebrew Poetiy, 425 — 428. 

Parallel passages of Scripture, 104, 105. 

4 



1096 



Index III. — Subjects and Authors. 



Typical parallels, 188, 189. Study of, 
231—239. 296—311. 

Paraphrases, 378, 379. 

Farashioth in the text of the Hehrew Bible, 
28. 

Pareau's Threni Jeremias philol. et crit. il- 
lustrati, referred to, 887. 892. 

Paronomasias, 219. 

Paul of Telia, his Syriac Version from the 
LXX., referred to, 65. 

Penn (Granville), his Annotations to the 
Book of the New Covenant, referred to, 
191. 

Pentateuch, general observations on, 573, 
574. The documentary hypothesis re- 
specting, 593, 594. Discrepancies in, 
595 — 606. Apportionment of the legaland 
historical materials, 606, 607. Diversity 
in the usus loquendi, 607 — 610. Unity, 
611 — 613, Mosaic authorship, internal 
evidence of, 613 — 616. New Testament 
evidence of, 616, 617. Evidence of Old 
Testament books, 617, 618. Evidence 
that the whole did not proceed from Moses, 
viz., traces of a post-Mosaic writer, 618, 
619. Historical and archaeological ex- 
planations which presuppose a later writer, 
619, 620. The local position of the writer 
in Palestine implied, 620. Passages in- 
compatible with the modesty of Moses, 
621. Later circumstances supposed, ibid. 
Names of places which came into use 
afterwards, 622. Date of, 623, 624. 
Traces of, in the other books of the Old 
Testament, 625 — 630. Remarks on these 
traces, 630. The kernel of, from Moses, 
632, 633. 

Persian Version of the Old Testament, 80. 

Personification and prosopopoeias in Scrip- 
ture, 404, 405. 

Peshito- Syriac Version, meaning of its title, 
its origin, author, &c, 75 — 77. 

Phih, referred to respecting the translation 
of the Septuagint, 47. The utility of his 
writings in the interpretation of Scripture, 
363—365. 

Philosophy, ancient, a knowledge of, useful 
in the interpretation of Scripture, 355. 

Philoxenus (Bp. of Hierapolis), 66. 

Pococke referred to, 66. 

Poetical parts of Scripture, their structure 
and interpretation, 425 — 435-. 

Poetry of the Hebrews, its genius, 425 — 
428. 

Poetry, amatory, of the Persians and Hin- 
doos, 793, 794. 803. 

Polish Version of the Bible, 248. 

Polycarp (Rural Bp. to Philoxenus), his 
Syriac translation from the LXX., 66. 

Poole's Annotation, quoted, 483, 484. 

Potken, referred to, 66. 

Powell's (Prof. Baden), Connection of Na- 
tural and Bevealed Truth, cited, 376. 

Preston's Book of Solomon, called Eccle- 
siastes, referred to, 785, 786. ; quoted, 
787, 788. 



Prideaux's Connection of the Old and New 
Testaments, referred to, 622. 1043. 

Profane authors, citations from some, in the 
New Testament, 176. 

Promises and threatenings of Scripture, re- 
mark on their interpretation, 499 — 503. 

Prophecies cited in the New Testament, how 
applied, 188—199. 

Prophecies of the Book of Daniel, then pecu- 
liar character, 929, 930. 

Prophecy, its nature, 447 — 454. Interpre- 
tation, 454 — 472. Double sense of, 458 
— 467. Relation to the law, 812. Earliest 
trace of written, 819. Form of, 820. 
Media, 820, 821. Prophetic symbolic 
actions, their real nature, 821 — 823. 
Modes of, 824—827. Periods of, 827— 
831. 

Prophets, various titles of and their meaning, 

809, 810. Their character and office, 

810. Various, 810 — 812. Relation to 
the law, 812 — 814. Modes by which they 
received their prophetic materials, 814 — 
816. Of both sexes, and from various 
ranks, 816. Schools of, 817. Often de- 
livered prophecies in reply to questions 
asked them, 818. Spoke with gesticula- 
tion, and employed signs and representa- 
tions, ibid. 819. Earliest trace of the 
writings of a prophet, 819. Prophetic 
literature, 820. Media through which 
they received their prophetic materials, 
ibid. Symbolical actions employed by, 
their nature, 821—823. Criteria of the 
true, 823, 824. Modes of prophecy, 824 
—827. Periods of prophetism, 827—831. 
Literature of, 831. The books of the, 
their arrangement, 832, 833. Table of the 
order of time in which they nourished, 834. 

Prosopopoeia and personification, 404, 405. 

Proverbs, their nature and interpretation, 
423. 

Proverbs, the Book of, nature of, 769, 770. 
Title, 770. Divisions, 720—722. Author- 
ship, in part Solomonic, 772 — 774. In 
part from different authors, 774 — -776. 
Appendix to, 776, 777. Age, 777. Cano- 
nical authority, 778. Poetic style, 779. 
Description of Wisdom in, 779 — 781. 

Psalms, the Book of, titles, 736. Eive books 
of, 736, 737. Another classification by 
De Wette, 737, 738. Diversity of distri- 
bution in Hebrew MSS., 738. Inscriptions 
or titles, 739—745. Their genuineness 
considered, 745 — 748. Authors, 748, 749. 
Supposed Maccabean period of some, 749, 
750. Collection and arrangement of, 750 
— 752. Aim of the collector, 752. Usage 
of the names Jehovah and Elohim in, 
753. Lyric character of, 754, 755. Mes- 
sianic character — extreme views cor- 
rected, 755 - 757. Adaptation to devo- 
tional purposes, 757, 758. Ethics of, — 
imprecatory psalms, various views exa- 
mined, 758 — 768. Quotations from, in 
the New Testament, 768, 769. Apoery- 



Index III. — Subjects and Autht 



1097 



phal psalm found in the LXX., the Syriac, 
Arabic, and Ethiopic versions, 769. 

Psalter, the Roman and Gallican, 65. 

Pseudo-Epiphanius, referred to, 870. 

Ptolemy PhiladeJphus and Ptolemy Lagi, their 
relation to the Septuagint, 47, 48. 



Qualifications of an interpreter of Scrip- 
ture, intellectual, 202 — 204. Moral, 204 
—207. 

Quotations, a source of various readings for 
the rectification of the text of Scripture, 

105. In the New Testament and Jose- 
phus, 106. Tn the Talmud and Rabbins, 

106, 107. In the Masorah, 107, 108. 
Quotations from the Old Testament in the 

New, tables of the, 113 — 176. Introduc- 
tory formulas of, 176 — 180. External 
form of, 180 — 185. Classification of, 185. 
Internal form of quotation, 186 — 195. 
Classification of, 195—198. List of places 
where quotations are made, 198—201. 



Rabbixical dialect of the Hebrew language, 

13, 14. 
Randolph's classification of quotations in 
the New Testament, 185. View of 
Christianity, 339. 
Ranke's Untersuchungen ueber den Penta- 
teuch, referred to, 594. 
Rapoport, Biccure ha-Schanah, referred to, 

75. 
Raus Ereimiithige Untersuchungen iiber 

d. Typologie, referred to, 435. 
Reading of the Scriptures, inferential, 556 

—565. Practical, 566—570. 
Redslob's Die Integritiit der stelle Hosea, vii. 
4 — 10. in Frage gestellt, u. s. w., referred 
to, 945. 
Renter's Repertorium, referred to, 790. 
Rhemish Testament, the notes of, quoted, 

483, 484. 
Ridgley's Body of Divinity, referred to, 442.; 

quoted, 477. 
RitschVs Die Alexandrinischen Bibliotheken 
und die Sammlung Homerischen Gedichte 
nach Anleitung eines Plautinischen Scho- 
liums, referred to, 49. 
River of Egypt, 351. 

Riveti Opera Theologica, referred to, 579. 
Robinson's (Dr.), Biblical Researches, quoted, 
8. 354. 520. &c. Greek Harmony, quoted, 
531. 544. 
Roediger's Uber d. Arama'ische Vulgar- 
sprache, referred to, 24, 25. Ueber Him- 
yar. Inschriften, referred to, 27. De 
Origine et Indole Arab. Librorum Veteris 
Testamenti Histor. ^nterpretat., referred 
to, 68. His edition of Gesenius's Hebrew 
Grammar, 759. 
Roman edition of the Septuagint, 63. 
Rosenmiiller, De versione Pentateuchi Per- 



sica, referred to, 80. Scholia, referred to, 

354. 941. Exeget. Repertorium, referred 

to, 585. 
Rossi, Bemhard De, his Hebrew Bible, 44, 

45. 
Riickert's Die Propheten des Alten und 

Neuen Testaments, referred to, 451. 455. 

Hebraische Propheten uebersetzt und er- 

laiitert, referred to, 862. 
Rudelbachand Guericke's Zeitschrift, referred 

to, 960. 
Rules for the proper use of versions, 86 — 

88. 
Ruth, the Book of, not counted separately in 

the O. T. Canon, 652. Divisions of, and 

date, 653. Author, 653, 654. Scope, 

654, 655. 



Saadias, Ben Levi Asnekoth, his Arabic 
version, 78. As a source of interpreta- 
tion, 245. 
Saadias Gaon (R.), his Arabic translation, 

78. 
Sabatiers Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinaa Ver- 

siones Antique, referred to, 1006. 
Sahidic Version from the LXX., 67. 
Samaritan books bearing the name of 

Joshua, 446. 
Samaritan dialect, 26. 

Samaritan Pentateuch, its origin, 34 — 36. 
Value, 36. Various readings, ibid. 37. 
Agreement with the Septuagint, 37. 
'S.o.fj.aptLTiKdv, rb, 58. 

Samuel, the two Books of, anciently reckoned 
one, 655. Divisions, ibid. 656. Scope, 
656. Different sources of, 657. Alleged 
contradictions in. ibid. — 661. Author and 
age, 661 — 664. Historical character, 664. 
Quoted in the New Testament, ibid. 
Sanbouki, Codex, 43. 
Sandbiieher's Erliiutemngen der biblischen 

Geschichte, referred to, 1008. 
Schelhorn's Amcenitates Litterarise, referred 

to, 84. 
Schiede's Observationum Sacrarum Biga, 

referred to, 108. 
Schleiermacher's Critical Essay on the Gospel 

of Luke, quoted, 529, 530. 
Schlottmann's Hiob verdeutsch und erlautert, 

referred to, 729. 
Scholia, the nature and use of, 250, 251. 378. 
Scholz, his Einleitung, referred to, 8. 937. 

1000. 1058. 
Schroeder's Wie reimen sich Stroh und 
Weizen zusammen? &c, referred to, 
1057. 
Schumann's Introduction to the Books of the 
Old and New Testament, referred to, 864. 
973. 
Scope of a passage, as an aid to interpreta- 
tion, 287, 288. 
Scott (Thomas), quoted, 374. 
Servant of Jehovah, the, of Isainh, how to be 
viewed, 863—866. 



1098 



Index III. — Subjects and Authors. 



Septuagint Version, various hypotheses re- 
specting its origin, 47. Aristeas's account 
considered, 47, 48. Made at different 
times, 49, 50. Number of translators, 50, 
51. Character, 52. Agreement between 
the Pentateuch of, and the Samaritan 
Pentateuch, and proposed explanations of 
the fact, 52 — 54. High opinion formerly 
entertained of it, 54. Disputes between 
Christians and Jews respecting it, 55. Edi- 
tions of, 62,63. The chief source of quotation 
in the New Testament, 176. As a source 
of grammatical interpretation, 241, 242. 
Sharpe's Historic Notes on the Old and 

New Testaments, quoted, 973. 
Shemiiic trunk-language, its grammatical 
and lexicographical peculiarities, 4 — 6. 
Affinity to the Indo-Germanic, 8. 
Silver age of the Hebrew language, 11. 
Simson's Der Prophet Hosea, referred to, 

941. 946. 
Sinaiticus, Codex, 43. 
Sionita's Gabriel, Arabic psalter, 68. 
Sirach (Ben), 1026. 1030, 1031. 
Sixtine and Clementine editions of the Vul- 
gate, variations between, 83, 84. 
Slavonic version from the LXX., 67. 
Smith (John), his Select Discourses, quoted, 

or referred to, 822. 827. 
Smith (Dr. J. Pye), his Scripture and Geo- 
logy, referred to, 358. Quoted, 371. 
Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, re- 
ferred to, 364. Quoted on the extent of 
the inspiration of the Old Testament, 
374, 375. On Job, xix. 25—29. 733. 
Principles of Prophetic Interpretation, 
quoted, 447, 448. 797. 
Sohar, the Jewish book so named, 361. 
Solomon, not the author of Ecclesiastes, 786. 

Nor of Canticles, 806 — 808. 
Sommers Biblische Abhandlungen, referred 

to, 744. 
Soncino, Hebrew Bible, 44. 
Song of the three Hebrew children, 936, 

937. 
Song of Solomon, Hebrew title, its mean- 
ing, 790. Difference of opinion as to its 
interpretation, ibid. Arguments in favour 
of its spiritual and allegorical meaning, 
790 — 795. Diversity of views among the 
allegorical interpreters, 795. Arguments 
in favour of the literal meaning, 795 — 
798. Difficulty of the question, 798. 
Considerations against the allegorical, and 
in favour of the literal, interpretation, 
799—805. Form of, 805. Object, ibid. 
806. The author not Solomon, 806— 
808. Divine authority of, 808. Inspira- 
tion of, ibid. 809. 
Sonntag's Commentatio de Jesu Siracida? 
Ecclesiastico non libro, sed libri farragine, 
referred to, 1025. 
Sources of criticism, 46. Application of, 

112. 
Sources of quotation in the New Testament, 
175, 176. 



Spain, the Book of, 43. 

Spanish versions of the Bible, 247. 

Spencer's Pastor's Sketch-Book, quoted, 
476. 

Spurstowe's Wells of Salvation, referred to, 
499. 

Stdhelin's Kritische Untersuchungen ueber 
d. Genesis, referred to, 595. 

Stations of the Israelites in the Wilderness, 
586, 587. 

StickeVs Hiob, referred to, 732. 

Stephens (Robert), his editions of the Vul- 
gate, 83. 

Stier, his dissertations on the Apocrypha, 
referred to, 1058. 

Strauss, his Vaticinia Zephanjae, referred 
to, 970, 971, 972. 

Stuart (Prof. Moses), his Commentary on 
Daniel, referred to, 234. 907, &c. His 
translation of Ernesti, referred to, 309. 
Commentary on Proverbs, referred to or 
quoted, 317. 423, 773. 916. Critical 
History and Defence of the Canon of the 
O. Testament, 795. 799—802. Charac- 
terised, 1056. 

Stuck' s Hoseas Propheta, referred to, 941. 

Studer's Das Buch der Bichter, referred to, 
648. 

Studien und Kritiken, referred to, 782. 842. 
863, &c. 

Stuhlmann's Exegetische Kritische Bemerk- 
ungen, referred to, 721. 

Supplementary hypothesis respecting the 
Pentateuch, 593. &c. 

Surenhusius's Bi/3Aos KaraWayrjs, referred to, 
177. Quoted, 178. 

~2,vpos, 6, 58. 

Susannah, the apocryphal history of, 937-9. 

Swedish Versions of the Bible, 248. 

Symmachus, who ? 57. His Greek version 
of the Old Testament, 57. Its use as a 
source of interpretation, 244. 

Syncellus, George, his Chronographia, 1026. 

Syriac Versions, from the LXX. 65. The 
old Syriac, 75-7. 



Taceigraphy, its influence on Hebrew writ- 
ing, 16. 

Talmud, the, as a help to the interpretation 
of Scripture, 360. Quoted, 815. 

Targums, meaning of the term, 69. How, 
why, and when made, 69, 70. Targum 
of'Onkelos,70, 71. Of Ben Uzziel, 71—73. 
Jerusalem Targum, or, of J onathan, 73, 74, 
On the Hagiographa, 74. As a source 
of interpretation, 243, 244. 

Tattam. Dr., referred to, 67. 

Tawus, Jacob ben, his Persian Version, 80. 

Teleology of the Evangelists, 189, 190. 

Teller's Appendix to Turretin's Tractatus 
de Sacrse Scripturse Interpretation e, re- 
ferred to, 489. 491. 493, &c. 

Tennemann's Geschichte der Philosophic, re- 
ferred to, 817. 



Index III. — Subjects and Authors. 



1099 



Terrofs Ernesti, quoted, 293. 
Tertullian de Resurrectione and advers. 
Marcionem, cited, 369,370. Contra Gnos- 
ticos, referred to, 870. 
Teten's Disquisitiones Generates in Sapien- 

tiam Jesu Siracida?, referred to, 1025. 
Tetrapla, the, of Origen, 58—60. 
Text of the Hebrew Bible, history of the ex- 
ternal form, 27—30. History of the text 
itself, unprinted,31., &c. Mistakes, 31,32. 
Designed alterations, 32. State of, before 
and at the close of the Canon, 33 — 38. 
Talmudical period of, 38-40. Masoretic 
period of, 40 — 43. History of the printed 
text, 43., &c. Editions of, 44. Contro- 
versy respecting the integrity of, 45. Col- 
lections of Kennicott and De Rossi, ibid. 

Text, of Scripture, the study of the, 213— 221. 

Thenius in the Exegetisehes Handbuch zum 
Alten Testament. Die Biicher der Koe- 
nige, referred to, 520. 668, &c. Die 
Biicher Samuels, 662, 663, 664. Die Kla- 
gelieder erklart, Vorbemerkungen, re- 
ferred to, 888, 889. 

Theodotion, his Greek version of the Old 
Testament, 66, 67. 

Thiersch, De Pentateuchi Versione Alexan- 
dria, referred to, 50. 

Tholuck's Litterarischer Anzeiger, referred 
to, 10. 907. 926. Das Alte Testament 
im Neuen Testament, referred to, 183. 
Commentary on Romans, referred to, 
290. Bergpredigt, 308. Doctrine of 
Inspiration, quoted, 376. Commentary 
on the Psalms, referred to, 738. 

Titles of the Psalms investigated, 739 — 749. 

Tobit, the Book of, history it narrates, 996, 
997. Greek, Hebrew, and Latin texts of, 
997 — 1000. Are the contents historical 
or fictitious ? 1000—1002. Date of, 1002. 
Value of, 1002, 1003. Not received into 
the Canon by the Jews, 1003. Different 
opinions respecting, in the Greek Church, 
ibid. Valued greatly by the Latin Church, 
1003, 1004. Pronounced canonical by the 
Council of Trent, 1004. 

Tomline's Elements of Christian Theology, 
referred to, 888. 

Townson, on the Gospels, referred to, 179. 

Tregelles's Account of the Printed Text of 
the New Testament, referred to, 370. 

Trench's Parables of our Lord, quoted, 411. 
419. 

Trent, the Council of, its decree respecting 
the Vulgate, quoted and considered, 83. 

Tropes, or tropical language of Scripture ; 
nature of a trope, 385 — 388. Examples of, 
388 — 390. How to determine whether a 
word is tropical, 390 — 395. 

Tubingen Quartalschrift, referred to, 844. 

Tuch's Commentar, referred to, 240. 

Turner's Companion to the Book of Genesis, 
referred to, 371. 512. 594. 

Tycksen's Tentamen de variis codicum 
Hebr. V. T. MS. generibus, referred to, 54. 

Types, their nature, 434 — 437. Observations 



on, and the interpretation of, 437 — 441. 
Excessive use, or abuse of, 441—444. 
Division of, 444. Rules or cautions for 
the interpretation of, 445, 446. Distinc- 
tion between types and symbols, 446. 
Prophetical types, ibid. 
Typical parallels, 188, 189. 



Ueltzen's edition of the Apostolic Consti- 
tutions, referred to, 1040. 

Ulphilas' Gothic Version, from the LXX., 
68. As a source of interpretation, 249. 

Umbreit on Job, referred to, 713. 732. 

linger, De Parabolarum Jesu Natura, re- 
ferred to, 419. 

United Associate Synod, their Testimony, 
quoted, 477. 

Unity of the Pentateuch, 611 — 613. 

Ussher's Syntagma de Grasca LXX. inter - 
pretum versione, referred to, 1011. 

Usus loquendi, 214. How ascertained, 214, 
215. Of different periods, 215,216. As 
a source of interpretation, 249 — 251. 



Valckenaer's Diatribe de Aristobulo Judceo, 
referred to, 48. 

Van der Hooght's Hebrew Bible, 44. 

Van der Vlis, his Disputatio Critica, referred 
to, 993, 994. 

Van Ess (Leander), his PragmatischJ£ri- 
tische Geschichte der Vulgata, referred to, 
64. 85. 

Various readings in the Hebrew Bible, the 
causes of, 31 — 33. 

Vater's Commentar ueber den Pentateuch, 
referred to, 620. 

Vayyikra Rabba, referred to, 784. 

Venetian Greek Version, 68. 

Versio Vetus, 63 — 65. 

Versions of the Old Testament, the Septua- 
gint, 47—55. Aquila's, 55, 56. Theo- 
dotion's, 56, 57. Symmachus', 57. Other 
Greek, ibid. 58. Erom the LXX., 63 — 68. 
Venetian Greek, 69. Targums, 69 — 75. 
Old Syriac, 75—78. Arabic, 78, 79. Sa- 
maritan of the Pentateuch, 79. Persian, 

80. Vulgate, ibid. 85. From the Vul- 
gate, 85. Rules for using, 86 — 88. As 
sources of interpretation, 241—245. 

Versions of the Bible, modern, 245 — 249. 

Their value, 249. 
Visions, prophetic, their character, 821. 825 

—827. 
Vitringa's Observations Sacrce, referred to, 

984. 
Vorstius De Adagiis Novi Testamenti Dia- 

triba, commended, 424. 
Vowel points, Hebrew, 18, 19. Controversy 

respecting, 21. 
Vulgate Version, executed by Jerome, 80, 

81. Eirst opposed. It soon came into 
general use, 81, 82, Growing corrupt, it 



iroo 



Index III. — Suhjects and Authors. 



is revised by Alcuin, Lanfranc, &c, 82. 
Editions of, 83. Pronounced authentic 
by the Council of Trent, ibid. Popes 
employed in making authorised editions 
of, ibid. 84. Variations of the Clemen- 
tine and Sixtine editions of, 84. Its 
value, 85. As a source of interpretation, 
242. 



Walton's Prolegomena, referred to, 67. 

Warburton's Divine Legation of Moses, 
quoted, 446.; referred to, 719. 

Wardlaw's Introduction to Clark's Scripture 
Promises, referred to, 449. 

Weeks, the seventy, of Daniel, investigated, 
913—915. 

Weiss, his Examen des Citations de l'An- 
cien Testament, referred to, 188. 

Welte's Nachmosaisches im Pentateuch e 
beleuchtet, referred to, 954. In Herbst's 
Einleitung in die heiligen Schriften, 1014. 
1049., &c. 

Wemyss's Key to the Symbolical Language 
of Scripture, referred to, 468. 

Wernsdorf, De fide historica librorum Mac- 
cabaicorum, referred to, 1045. 1049. 

Westminster Catechism, quoted, 480. Con- 
fession of Faith, 488. 

Wetstein's Greek Testament, referred to, 
259. 

Whately's Thoughts on the Sabbath, quoted, 
488. 

Whiston's Primitive Christianity, referred to, 
995. 

Whitaker's Origin of Arianisni, referred to, 
691. 

Wichelhaus, De Jeremia? Versione Alexan- 
dria, referred to, 49. 51. 883. 

Wieseler's Chronologische Synopse der Vier 
Evangelien, referred to, 530. Die 70 
Wochen und die 63 Jahrwochen des Pro- 
pheten Daniel, 913. 923. 994. 

Wilke's Die Hermeneutik, referred to, 1059. 

Winer's Biblisches Realworterbuch, referred 
to, 17. 344. 958. 1027., &c. Grammar 
of the Chaldee Language, referred to, 
919. Exposition of the Epistle to the 
Galatians, referred to, 1059 
Wintle's Improved Version of Daniel, quoted, 
91. 

Wisdom, as described in the Book of Pro- 
verbs, 779 — 781. 

Wisdom of Solomon, the Book of, inscription, 

1013. Divisions, ibid. 1014. Unity of, 

1014. Various interpolations, ibid. 1015. 
Supposed Christian authorship, 1015. 
Original language, 1016. Author, ibid. 
1018. Time he lived, 1018. Author's 



aim, ibid. 1019. Value, 1019. Style, 
ibid. 1020. Sources of its doctrine, 1020. 
Idea of Divine wisdom, 1021. Texts and 
versions of, 1022, 1023. Eirst traces of 
the book, 1023. Never received into the 
Jewish Canon, ibid. Variously regarded 
by Christians, ibid. 1024. 

Wisdom of the son of Sirach, title, 1024. 
Eesemblance to the Book of Proverbs, 
ibid. Contents, 1025. Author, 1026. 
Age, 1026—1028. Original language, 
1028. Translator, 1029. Greek text, 
ibid. Ethics of, 1029, 1030. Keference of 
the Talmud to Ben Sirach, 1030. Two 
collections of proverbs attributed to, 1030, 
1031. Ancient versions of, 1031, 1032. 
Earliest use of the book, 1032. Cited as 
Scripture by the Fathers, ibid. Never re- 
ceived by the Jews into their Canon, 
1033. 

Wiseman's Essays, referred to, 64. 370. 
Horse. Syriacse, 67. 77. 

Wolfe's Messiah as predicted in the Penta- 
teuch and Psalms, quoted, 458. 

Wolfii, Bibliotheca Hebrasa, referred to, 43. 
361. 

Wordsworth's Lectures on the Canon, re- 
marks on, 1056, 1057. 

Writings, Jewish, a knowledge of, useful in 
the interpretation of Scripture, 359 — 366. 



Xenophon's Cyropsedia, referred to, 920. 



Years, the 430 of Israel's residence in a 
strange land, 511. 594. 



Zechariah, the prophet, an account of, 975. 

Zechariah, the Book of, divisions, 976, 977. 
First part, nine visions and four oracles, 
976, 977. Authenticity of second part, 
arguments for, 798, 799. Against, 799, 
780. Weightiest reasons against the 
authenticity, 980—983. Difiiculty of 
Zechariah's writings, 983, 984. 

Zephaniah,ihe prophet, little known of him, 
969, 970. Time when he prophesied, 970. 

Zephaniah, the Book of, divisions, 970, 971. 
Manner and style, 971. 

Ziegler, referred to, 69. 

Zumpfs Commentationum Epigraphicarum 
ad Antiquitates Romanas pertinentium 
Volumen alterum, referred to, 1059. 

Zunz, Die Gottesdienstlichen Vortrage der 
Juden, referred to, 70. 72, 73. 75., &c. 



END OF THE SECOND VOLUME. 



London: Prmted_by Spottiswoode & Co., New-street-Square. 



THE 

TEXT 

OF 

THE OLD TESTAMENT 

CONSIDEEED; 

^yITH 

A TREATISE ON SACRED INTERPRETATION; 



BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS AND 
THE APOCRYPHA. 



BY SAMUEL DAVIDSON, D,D, 

OF THE UNTVEKSITT OF HALLE, AND LL.D. 



PART I. 



LONDON: 
LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, LONGMANS, & ROBERTS. 

MDCCCLVI. 



TJw right of translation is reserved. 



THE 

TEXT 



THE OLD TESTAMENT 



CONSIDERED; 



A TREATISE ON SACRED INTERPRETATION; 



BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE OLD TESTAMENT BOOKS. AND 
THE APOCRYPHA. 



BY SAMUEL DAVIDSON, D.D, 

OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HALLE, AND LL.D. 



PART II. 



LONDON: 
LONGMAN, BROWN, GREEN, LONGMANS, & ROBERTS. 

MDCCCLVI. 



Tlie right of translation is reserved. 



THE TEAVELLER'S LIP.li 

In Twenty-five Volumes, price Five Guineas, in cloth. 



's Library bein 

comprises fourteen of the most popub 
v Reform. 

account i olonies. 

»ry will be foun 

Works of i i the plan of the Tb 

but the Confessions of a ■ 
founded on fact, has been includi 
many of the working classes, for w 
story ol 

Amongst the woi iral Philosop] 






LIBRARY OF CONGRESS * 



022 009 283 5 



9H 



<m 



H 

IS 



Hi 



